We are hearing, once again, that the results of the Israeli election are a "distortion of democracy."
Details of the complaints vary with the complainers. One problem this time, as on other occasions, is the weight of religious parties. On their menu are increased funding for religious schools, increased family payments that will benefit the large families of religious Jews (as well as Arabs whose parties are allied with the ultra-Orthodox on this issue), an opposition to civil marriage, and their usual opposition to non-Orthodox Judaism.
Another problem is the weight of right-of-center Likud, Israel Beiteinu, and National Unity.
What those who talk about "distortions of democracy" really mean is that they are not happy with the election results.
As far as I know, there is no democracy that is not distorted in one way or another.
Look at the United States, as an example familiar to many of us. It is "distorted" on account of the equal representation of the states in the Senate. This gives the residents of low population states more weight than those of large population states. The United States is also "distorted" by other features of its federal system, which allow the authorities of individual states to rule as they wish about access to alcohol and constraints on abortion, what school books may say about evolution, how much is spent on education, and many other issues. For some Americans, it is a distortion of democracy that environmentalists or supporters of Israel have too little or too much weight in Congress and the administration, depending on who is up and who is down.
Each democracy has its rules of the game, and they do not give equal weight or complete freedom. Some are always more equal than others.
The rules of the game in Israel, and how they work to affect government, reflect its history, the population, and the issues that lead voters to choose one or another of the options available. In this general trait, Israel is similar to the three dozen or so other countries that qualify as democracies.
Israel's system of proportional representation is about as undistortedly democratic as is possible to achieve. About 30 parties run in each election, and 10 or so usually get the 2 percent minimum required for getting seats in the Knesset.
The number of seats that parties have in the Knesset reflect divisions in the population. Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox parties have enough to protect their turf. Arab rejectionists get their share, which usually produces ten MKs barking outside of the government about how unfair things are. In recent years the mostly Jewish secular parties have divided in ways so that no one of them is clearly dominant, largely on account of disagreements in the population about how to deal with the issue of Palestine.
Israelis urge reform, and occasionally the Knesset tinkers with the details. A prominent change gave each citizen two votes: one for prime minister, and one for a party list of Knesset members. This prevailed in the elections of 1996, 1999, and 2001. Opponents called the reform a failure, and cited the distortions they said it created. The Knesset reverted to a single vote for a party list and a conventional parliamentary arrangement. Now as before 1996, the Knesset must approve which of its members will be the prime minister, and the government he or she offers.
The advantage of keeping things as they are is that players know the rules, and how they can maximize their advantages. When the rules change, the complications of politics may produce surprises that disappoint some even more than in the case of the previous rules.
A Russian friend thinks Israel is undemocratic because he cannot marry a non-Jew. Russia was more democratic.
I remind him that he can marry who is wants outside of Israel, register the marriage here, and live happily ever after. A Cyprus marriage is likely to be less expensive than an Israeli marriage. A couple can probably do the whole thing, including the 30 minute flight, for less than $1,000, without having to feed hundreds of guests. A Jewish man with the name of Cohen cannot marry a Jewish divorcee in Israel. But he can do it elsewhere and register the marriage here. A Justice of the Supreme Court found himself in that situation, did what he had to, and did not suffer in public. I do not know if he suffered at home.
Democracy concerns procedure and not outcome. Its essential ingredients are wide access to the vote and media, ample opportunities to persuade and criticize, accurate counting and reporting of the results, and the acceptance of the outcome by the losers.
By "distortions of democracy" some people mean "violations of civil rights." This opens the issue of "what are civil rights?" In Israel and in other democracies, this question is subject to dispute, and decision by the legislature, administration, and courts.
Many Israelis may be unhappy with the results of an election, or what the winners do with their power. They should try harder next time, or realize that their desires do not have the support they would like.
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