Time for electoral reform

Electoral reform simply must be a major element in the political program of Israel’s next government – whenever it is formed.

Time to decide who to vote for again  (photo credit: REUTERS)
Time to decide who to vote for again
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Throughout Israel’s constitutional logjam, it has been difficult to see the forest for the trees. The trees that have been blocking the view are the political maneuverings of the main protagonists and the positions they have adopted throughout the process, based on principles that few have much sympathy with.
Many, if not most voters believe that some form of unity government was well within the grasp of either Benjamin Netanyahu or Benny Gantz, if either – or, indeed, if Avigdor Liberman – had deigned to compromise. Their rigid redlines, however, proved too powerful a disincentive to do that. As a result, the national interest, which is crying out for a return to effective government, has suffered.
The forest, hidden from view by these burgeoning trees, is Israel’s current electoral system, which has landed the country in this mess. The way governments are elected is in urgent need of reconsideration and reform.
What are its obvious weaknesses? To anyone nurtured in the bosom of US or UK democracy, the most obvious problem is that Israeli general elections do not return a majority party but require weeks of intensive back-room negotiations before a government can be formed – and that sometimes these negotiations fail to deliver. Having failed twice, what assurance is there that a third general election will yield a different outcome?
Israel’s system presupposes that all governments will be coalitions. But no immutable law states that democratic governments must be coalitions. In the UK, for instance, while circumstances sometimes require such an outcome, coalition governments are the exception rather than the rule. The normal result of general elections is that one or the other of the two main parties is returned to power with a working majority, and subsequently forms a government.
This sort of outcome is common in both the UK and the more complex US political structure, neither of which require weeks of sometimes unsavory wheeling and dealing following elections. Both systems are based not on party lists but on individual candidates.
When the Israeli electorate goes to the polls, it is asked to choose the one party among the many competing – sometimes 30 or more – with whose policies voters most agree. The number of seats that each party gains in the Knesset is almost exactly proportional to the number of votes the party obtains in the general election. That is a democratic plus.
THE DOWNSIDE is that inevitably, the nation’s vote is fractured. No single party can emerge as the outright winner, hence the back-room trading and bargaining. Concessions are demanded by the smaller parties in return for their support. The policies finally agreed to by the cobbled-together majority can be far from the policies anyone voted for.
A considerable additional weakness in the current arrangement is the total lack of personal engagement between members of the Knesset and the people. MKs gain their seats because of their position on their party’s lists. In the US, citizens know who the two senators representing their state are, just as they know by name the individual who represents their constituency in the House.
The UK is divided into 650 constituencies, each of which returns one Member of Parliament in a first-past-the-post voting system. Once elected, that MP is deemed to represent all the voters in the constituency, and any of them with a problem would look to “their” MP for help. Every voter therefore has a direct personal link with an MP, whether that MP is a backbencher or a minister – even the prime minister.
The main disadvantage of first-past-the-post is that seats in parliament do not match the national voting pattern. Candidates can and do win a seat having gained far less than 50% of the votes in their constituency. The system produces large majorities but a democratic deficit.
Proposals to reform Israel’s electoral system by combining the constituency concept with proportionality have been put forward on several occasions. The last attempt, in 1988, proposed that Israel be divided into 60 constituencies, each of which would elect one MK, while another 60 would be elected by the current system. We would all vote for both a candidate and a list. The proposal foundered.
Back in 2005, then-president Moshe Katsav set up a commission to examine constitutional issues, including the electoral system. It met regularly for more than a year, and it too finally favored a combined system, although with a different constituency structure. The commission’s recommendations, like earlier attempts at electoral reform, were not followed up on – nor indeed were subsequent efforts, like those of Prof. Menahem Ben-Sasson in 2006.
This is an irritation that must be relieved. The dire events of 2019 point in no other direction. Electoral reform simply must be a major element in the political program of Israel’s next government – whenever it is formed.
The writer is Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is The Chaos in the Middle East: 2014-2016. He blogs at: a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.