Why are Israeli elections so indecisive?
The condition has been apparent for some time, as shown by the difficulty of cobbled-together government coalitions to last for the maximum four years. Since 1996 there have been five national elections, in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006 and 2009. The results this time are close to a tie between the leading parties. There may be an actual tie, depending on absentee ballots.
Defined as a problem of democracy, Israel's lack of decisiveness is not all that unique. Other regimes appear simpler, with fewer parties and more stable governments. However, they may wrestle with their problems in political parties that are large, but not united, or with various interests that can keep the legislature tied up without the resolution of chronic problems.
.
There is no single, dominant cause of Israel's situation.
Explanations can begin with the parties that appeal to narrow and fixed constituencies, that pretty much stay out of disputes about the general problems that citizens voting for other parties want to solve. Largely Arab parties typically get 10 or so seats in the Knesset, and spend their time on the outside, criticizing whatever government is in power. Ultra-Orthodox parties count for another 15-18 seats, and limit themselves to the occasional fray about a religious matter, as well as money for their schools and (along with Arab parties) welfare payments for their large families. Another 6-10 seats go to Orthodox and nationalist parties (currently Jewish Home and National Unity) that are concerned mostly about settling the Land of Israel.
That leaves 80 to 90 seats open to parties with more general concerns, located at varying degrees to the right or left of center. When one of these parties leads a government, it is unlikely to have enough seats to dominate the government, without having to accommodate several others concerned about their own interests.
Another factor contributing to instability is the elephant in the living room, or the issue of Israel's unresolved relationships with its neighbors. We can define this as a tangle made up of Palestinians who will not compromise; Arab governments who continue to fan Palestinian aspirations in order to keep their own populations from focusing on their misery and their corrupt governments; and Americans and Europeans who also fan Palestinian aspirations. The fanning from American and Europe is milder than that from Arab countries. However, it contributes to Palestinian stubbornness, hoping that they do not have to compromise with Israel in order for someone else to provide them with a state along with the financial aid to operate it.
The Palestinian split between Hamas and Fatah makes the elephant in the living room all the more difficult. Europeans, Americans, moderate Arabs or Israelis have not figured out what to do.
There are Israelis, and lots of others, who blame Israel for the continued impasse. However, one can view the rightward tilt in this year's elections to indicate that many Israelis feel they have offered enough by way of reasonable accommodations.
The day after the election results that disappointed many, politicians and commentators proclaimed that the problem was the nature of the government. By this they mean a cluster of items that include the parliamentary system, proportional representation, many parties, and governments that cannot decide on the crucial issues and remain in power for four years. Several pledged themselves to work for reform. However, it has been tried before, without great success. This week's advocates agree on reform, but not its details.
Given its problems, the country is more or less successful. It has maintained its security, along with its self-critical and competitive democracy, despite intense enemies. Its social services do not fall below the levels of other countries who have similar levels of economic resources. It cannot afford everything that activists demand, partly because of the wide agreement to spend so much of its resources on defense.
On account of the structural problems of the Middle East, and its own fragmented society, Israel is likely to putter along more or less like it has. It is not neat, or satisfying, but it is.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il