By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Habit, no less than reason, is what prompts people to blame the head of their government or its ruling party for failure to solve basic public problems.  I say “habit” because if you live in a long-established regime, you are not likely to blame its form of government for its inept foreign policies or its serious socio-economic and moral problems. It’s much easier to denounce the failings of your president or his party.  And more “practical” because it’s far more difficult to change established institutions than to elect a new president or replace the party in power with another.

Few people in a democracy discern or trouble themselves about the defects of their system of governance.  Fewer still see the relationship between faulty government policies and their country’s electoral laws.  Most people take their governing institutions and electoral laws for granted.

Nevertheless, many basic problems are the result of unrecognized flaws in a country’s law-making and policy-making institutions.  The attributes of institutions — the qualifications for voting and holding office, the mode of election, the size, tenure, and powers of the various branches — can either increase or decrease the probability of getting competent office-holders on the one hand, and facilitate salutary public policies on the other.

I have elsewhere shown that Israel’s Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are poorly designed. They render it extremely difficult to pursue policies conducive to national solidarity, self-confidence, and security.  Although more and more people in Israel are learning this, basic institutional or constitutional change is very difficult, and for various reasons.

First, and as indicated, most people find it simpler to blame the failings of this or that politician or party for their country’s plight, rather than the design of their system of governance.  Second, political parties and various economic groups, having learned how to exploit and profit from the system, have a vested interests in preserving the institutional status quo.  Third, Israel’s precarious situation in the Middle East discourages others from venturing on basic institutional reform.  Fourth, there are many people who do not see that it is precisely the defects of Israel’s political and judicial institutions that are largely responsible for the country’s internal and external dangers.

For example, it’s easier to say that the government is inept, or that it ignores public opinion, than to see that the country’s parliamentary electoral laws may discourage high caliber individuals from seeking public office, while making it easier for low caliber politicians to remain in office and betray their voters..  Very few people in a democracy have the professional training to recognize that its electoral laws may be largely responsible for inferior leadership and even official corruption.  But electoral laws very much determine not only the extent to which a government is democratic and faithful to the electorate, but capable of advancing to public office men capable of dealing effectively with the country’s basic tensions and dangers.

Consider.  Democracy means the rule of the people, which translates into the rule of the majority. The rule of the majority means the opinion of the majority on this or that public issue.  Knowing this opinion, Legislators have an obligation to translate that opinion into public law, or, in the case of the Executive, to apply existing law in conformity with public opinion.  Although this is a simplified view of things, it corresponds to the idea of representative government.    Admittedly, public opinion on a particular issue is not necessarily correct or just.  But there are occasions when public opinion actually represents the basic principles of any decent or civilized society.  Here is an example.

On May 31, 1994, eight months after the signing of the Israel-PLO Accords, the following question was posed to Hebrew-speaking Israelis in a Gallop poll:  “There are those who claim that senior PLO officials, such as Arafat and others who are suspected of murdering Israelis, should not be put on trial, because such an action would probably damage the peace process.  There are others who claim that everyone is equal before the law, and therefore suspected PLO officials should be investigated and put on trial.  Which claim do you support?”

Almost 66% of the population, including 59% of Labor voters, held that senior PLO officials should be put on trial even though it might damage the peace process! From this data one may conclude that the Rabin or Labor-led government of 1994 did not faithfully represent the public’s attitude toward the policy of “territory for peace” – which perhaps may also be said of every succeeding Israeli government!  Even if many Israelis are resigned to that policy, it does not accord with their deepest and abiding convictions.  They are simply following their “leaders,” having no leader with wisdom and courage enough to offer a viable alternative.  So much should be obvious.

But it should also be obvious that if Israel’s political institutions and electoral laws were designed in such a way as to render Israeli politicians more dependent on public opinion, the September 13, 1993 Israel-PLO Agreement would never have taken place, indeed, would have been implemented even partially! The same may be said of the 2004 Evacuation Law, which Ariel Sharon virtually imposed on the Knesset despite the fact that the policy embodied in that law—“unilateral disengagement”— was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public in the 2003 election.

If MKs were dependent not on their party leaders but on the voters for their continuance in office, Oslo would not have occurred and Israel would not be in its present mess.  But as we see, Israel’s political elites can ignore public opinion with impunity, which places in question the widespread belief that Israel is a genuine democracy – however democratic it may appear in comparison with its Arab neighbors. Imagine Netanyahu boasting of this comparison when he addresses the Congress of the United States!

In any event, to transform Israel into genuine democracy will require fundamental changes in Israel’s institutions and electoral laws. Merely to replace one Prime Minister with another will not solve Israel’s basic problems.