A political crisis amid COVID-19 should (and could) have been avoided

In the past, Israeli politicians have also prioritized Israel’s welfare over party politics and formed unity governments in the face of national crises.

By DAPHNÉ RICHEMOND-BARAK
A banner depicts Benny Gantz, leader of Blue and White party, and Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of Blue and White party's campaign ahead of the upcoming election, in Tel Aviv, Israel February 17, 2020 (photo credit: AMMAR AWAD / REUTERS)
A banner depicts Benny Gantz, leader of Blue and White party, and Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of Blue and White party's campaign ahead of the upcoming election, in Tel Aviv, Israel February 17, 2020
(photo credit: AMMAR AWAD / REUTERS)
Though the worst has been avoided, Israel’s experience should serve as a wake-up call to other countries, including the US: do not mix politics into the ongoing health crisis.
Israel is in the process of establishing a unity government, following Benny Gantz’s decision to join the Likud and dismantle the Blue and White party that he created just over a year ago. This is a responsible decision, but it comes too late: Benny Gantz should have offered his support to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the very early stages of the COVID-19 crisis instead of actively working towards creating coalitions. Had President Reuven Rivlin spoken earlier than March 25th to advocate unity, that might also have been helpful. Instead, Israel found itself fighting the gravest health crisis of the century and a political and constitutional crisis, all at once.
As the world struggles to contain the impact of COVID-19, some nations are naturally engaged in the process of holding elections, forming governments, or transitioning from one leader to the next. National emergencies may disrupt these processes to the point that political leaders decide to put them on hold to tend to an ongoing crisis. In the case of Israel, this would have been preferable.
Israel’s third election occurred in the shadow of a growing threat from COVID-19 and a correspondingly aggressive response from the Israeli government at a relatively early stage. At the beginning of the outbreak in China, Israel was quick to implement quarantines for Israelis returning from China and travel bans on non-citizens who had recently traveled to China and other Asian countries. On March 4, two days after Israelis went to the polls, it extended its quarantine requirement to Israeli citizens who had traveled to several European countries. Then, on March 9, Netanyahu announced the required quarantine would extend even further, to anyone entering the country starting on March 12. These unprecedented decisions were made by a transitional government that began on after the Israeli Knesset dissolved itself in December 2019.
As Israel’s transitional government was making bold decisions on a daily basis to fight the outbreak, the process of government formation nevertheless continued unabated. President Rivlin met with each of the party leaders to discuss who will receive the mandate to form a new government. On March 15, a full six days after the adoption of those severe measures, Rivlin said, “this is a trying time, not only for the health system and the economy, but for us all as a society…The success of the State of Israel in dealing with this extreme crisis lies in the hands of our civil society…. We need to work to form a government as soon as possible.” Rivlin also convened Gantz and Netanyahu together on the 15th, in an apparent attempt to encourage them to work together to come up with a solution. At no point did he suggest that intense negotiations towards the formation of the government should be postponed considering the nation’s dire – and warranted – efforts to contain the spread of the epidemic.
Then Gantz was given the official go-ahead. Together with Rivlin, he repeatedly expressed his hope for a quickly established, unity-based government given the country’s continued fight of the coronavirus. However, the negotiations and political back and forth that have happened between Netanyahu and Gantz over past weeks were a great distraction.
In a situation akin to COVID-19, albeit on a smaller scale, Tony Blair postponed a local and general election in 2001 following an outbreak of the foot and mouth disease. The Guardian reported that the majority of the public, the farming unions, bishops, the Tory leader William Hague and the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy supported the decision. Other leaders supported the decision because Blair promised that elections for new leaders would be held as scheduled after the one-month delay – and his assurance that there would not be any further delay. Blair thereby guaranteed that the democratic process would not be delayed forever; the terms of the unity government offered by Netanyahu early on had similar assurances. Similar measures were taken by Spain in the wake of the Madrid bombings in 2004, and by French leaders in 2012 following the murderous attacks in Toulouse. In both situations electoral campaigns were put on hold in the face of national emergencies.
In the past, Israeli politicians have also prioritized Israel’s welfare over party politics and formed unity governments in the face of national crises. In June of 1967, as tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors were rising, Levi Eshkol created a unity government, even though Labor already had a 75-seat majority. The average survival time of a government between 1949 and 1967 was 17 months; this government lasted for 38, ending with Eshkol’s death. Israeli leaders today should have followed Eshkol’s lead much earlier.
It would likely have prevented a debacle at the Knesset, the involvement of the Supreme Court urging the resignation of Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, and the President’s address to the nation. While Gantz could have done more sooner to limit the political maneuverings inherent to government formation, Rivlin could have taken on a larger role as intermediary and publicly conveyed a sense of urgency earlier in the process. Ultimately, it is for the political opponent to demonstrate leadership, reach out to whoever is in power, and offer assistance in the face of a national emergency. In times of crisis, the political system should rally behind the incumbent. Campaigns and other political maneuvers – which in the case of Israel crystallized into a full-fledged political crisis and nearly resulted in a constitutional crisis – have no place during such trying times.
Moving forward, party politics and individuals’ personal political considerations should not continue to undermine states’ responses to COVID-19. Though a unity government is certainly the better outcome, some major political and ideological divides remain. Both sides will have to make significant concessions – a process that hopefully won’t detract too much from the pressing challenge of containing the pandemic.
The writer is assistant professor at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, and senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, IDC Herzliya. With many thanks to Emma Schoenberger for valuable research assistance.