Four-letter words and democracy for dummies
Democratic elections are designed to reflect the preference of “The People.” The results, however, do not always coincide with the design. Winston Churchill, who won a world war but lost the elections thereafter is a prime example of design malfunction. Churchill was the most popular prime minister in British history, but Britain’s voting system failed to demonstrate that. The UK and Israel have a similar parliamentary voting system, except that in Israel, where there are many more political parties, the system’s ability to reflect the people’s choice is more challenging.
There are many interpretations to the recent election results in Israel. One observation is, however, clear. The Oslo Accords and the Left in Israel have essentially lost relevance. None of the 38 political parties who ran in the elections dared link their party platforms to those ill-conceived accords or the political process that followed it. Signed with much fanfare a generation ago, the ill-conceived and unethical agreements have gone down as an historical folly, leaving Oslo, and as a by-product, the Left, to become the most derogatory four-letter words of the land. For good reason.
After generations of ideological debate aimed to determine Israel’s destiny, the Left-versus-Right dispute was replaced by shallow, four-letter words and social media driven creeds of love him or hate him. Netanyahu or not Netanyahu? – Bibi or not Bibi? That seemed to be the question on most Israelis’ minds as they made their way to the voting booth.
Votes have been counted but ambiguity persists. Netanyahu’s party has nearly double the mandates of the party with the second largest number of seats, but he can’t form a government. Neither can anyone else. “The People’s” preference of parties can be construed by the election results, but the preference for prime minister cannot. That is the system’s leading lacuna, and it may drag the nation into a fifth national election in the span of twoand-a-half years.
The only way to democratically resolve this predicament is to put the Netanyahu or not Netanyahu question to a direct test. Permit the people to directly decide who they want as their leader. Once that is determined everything else will fall into place.
THE NOT-NETANYAHU camp, mainly consisting of former Oslo proponents and other politicians who despise Netanyahu, claims Netanyahu is divisive, and that Israel deserves a prime minister without indictment, even if it is acknowledged by his archrival, Naftali Bennett, that “Netanyahu was clearly hunted by the legal system.”
The Netanyahu camp, mainly consisting of loyal followers who have voted for him time and again, are convinced that the prime minister is innocent, and that his flaws are by far outweighed by his unprecedented achievements.
Love him or hate him, his abilities and accomplishments are indisputable. Mitigating the horrors of Oslo, putting Tehran back in its box (before Biden), jump-starting Israel’s economy, building a robust military, gaining international recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights without a single shot being fired, cementing the acceptance of Israel by significant Arab states by means of the Abraham Accords and perhaps above all – his unrelenting efforts to vaccinate all Israelis and free his people from a global pandemic before any other country.
Many Israeli voters considered the complexities of forming a coalition after the elections and tried to calculate their choice accordingly. Such calculations have caused chaos in the past and are doing so again. Clearly, the electoral system needs reform. The people should be able to vote for their representatives in parliament and once they know the balance in the house, they should vote for their prime minister. Or vice versa. That would bring in favorable components of the long-standing British system on one hand, and the American system on the other.
Such a reform is clearly needed but may need to wait for a time of tranquility.
In the meantime, Netanyahu, with a 30 mandate party, is currently unable to gather the needed 61 mandates to form a government. Neither can anyone else. That leaves the dire option of going to a fifth round of elections or a worse option of having a prime minister with a seven-mandate party.
Israel is in political deadlock, but if hate can be replaced with hope – Israel’s national anthem and Gideon Sa’ar’s party name – a no-nonsense government can be formed. Alternatively, “we, the people” should be permitted to vote for the prime minister of our choice.