|
TIME
January 27,
2003
Summary:
The author
criticizes Israel’Äôs party
list system of full representation (proportional representation), and
discusses the balance of power in the Knesset, which he views as
leading to a stagnant continuance of current deadlock.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,411835,00.html
Israel Votes, But Little
Will Change:
Sharon looks set for a runaway victory,
but no sign of any movement on the Israeli-Palestinian front
By
Tony Karon
January 27, 2003 Nowhere
more than in Israel does the old anarchist aphorism hold true: No
matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. That's
because the Jewish State's proportional-representation democracy
awards a parliamentary seat to any party able to muster a measly 1.5
percent of the popular vote, and that combined with the increasing
"tribalization" of its electorate has made it an iron rule of
Israeli politics that no party ever wins a simple majority. Instead,
the leader of the party that wins the most seats then faces weeks of
horse-trading with a plethora of small and medium-sized parties to
cobble together a coalition government capable of passing
legislation by a simple majority in the 120-seat Knesset. But as
deep as the political divisions among Israel's 6 million citizens
run ’Äî hard-line nationalists vs. peaceniks and Israeli Arabs;
ultra-Orthodox vs. secularists; the poorer Sephardic Jews who
emigrated to Israel from Arab countries vs. the Ashkenazi Jewish
elite with its cultural and political roots in Europe, with the
almost 1 million Russian immigrants of varying degrees of Jewishness
tilting the balance hither and thither ’Äî external threats create the
cement that binds it together. Tuesday's election is likely to
produce a familiar outcome. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is expected
to trounce his Labor Party challenger Amram Mitznah, whose platform
is based on seeking a to renew dialogue with the Palestinians over
an Oslo-based peace agreement, and on a program to stimulate an
economy mired in its worst recession in 50 years. Sharon is
campaigning on the basis of continuity of his tough policies against
the Palestinian uprising and postponing political negotiations until
after it has been suppressed. In many ways, it's a rerun of the
contest between Sharon and his predecessor, Ehud Barak ’Äî and two
years later, Sharon is once again the runaway favorite to carry the
day despite (or, perhaps because of) the continuing security crisis
and its social and economic costs. But a runaway victory in Israel
is a relative term: Sharon's Likud Party is expected to win some 30
seats, as against Labor's 19. That will leave him forced to choose
between a range of coalition options. A "National Unity" government
comprising the opposite ideological poles of the dovish Labor Party
and the hawkish Likud has traditionally been a temporary solution to
immediate crises confronting the embattled Jewish State, and the
endemic security crisis in the West Bank and Gaza has made it,
increasingly, the default setting of Israeli politics. Sharon headed
up a unity government until Labor bolted in search of an independent
identity shortly before the latest poll, and he has made clear that
a National Unity government comprising Labor and some smaller
right-wing and religious parties is his first choice of coalition
arrangements. But Mitznah maintains that unity governments prevent
Israel from being presented with the decisive choices for peace,
which for him include withdrawing from most of the West Bank and
Gaza and evacuating most Israeli settlements there. He represents
the dovish wing of the party that overthrew Sharon's erstwhile Labor
coalition partner, former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, and
has vowed to stay out of any unity government with Sharon in the
belief that his party can more effectively present the peace option
from the opposition benches. Mitznah may face an internal revolt
that could see Labor once again accepting the junior role in
Sharon's government, but if not, he may have to look towards a
narrower coalition of hard-line nationalist and religious parties.
The wildcard in the current election, however, is the centrist
Shinui party of Tommy Lapid, which has surged from the political
margins on a platform of militant secularism. Lapid's peace policies
are somewhat vague, but his challenge to the privileges of the
ultra-Orthodox who are exempt from military service and study at
state expense has proved so popular that Shinui stands to win a
potential king-making role with 14 seats. Lapid's dream ticket is a
Likud-Labor-Shinui coalition, which would mark the first time in
decades that Israel's secular parties were able to rule without
paying disproportionate political tribute to the smaller religious
parties. Whatever the configuration of the next coalition, it's a
relative certainty that Tuesday's election will return Sharon to
power ’Äî and lead to a continuation of current policies. And of the
current deadlock. Suicide bombers continue to strike inside Israel
and gunmen attack settlements; Israeli troops maintain their
occupation of the West Bank and raid Gaza's population centers.
Sharon says he has a peace plan but says he's waiting for an end to
Palestinian violence and the effective ouster of Yasser Arafat
before it can be implemented; the Palestinians maintain that little
can change in their political dynamic as long as they remain under
Israeli occupation. Although the U.S. has together with European
allies formulated a "road map" for rapid movement towards a
Palestinian state, the Bush administration has thus far declined to
put pressure on Sharon by committing publicly to the plan. U.S.
positions typically play a major role in shaping the choices of the
Israeli electorate ’Äî by pushing strongly for accommodation with the
Palestinians, the first Bush administration helped elect Yitzhak
Rabin and the Clinton administration actively campaigned to elect
Barak. The current Bush administration, however, agreed to keep the
"road map" off the table during Israel's election season. And that
may explain why, as Israel went to the polls Tuesday for an election
whose outcome is all but given, one bitter peacenik Israeli
commentator observed that the only vote that really counts belongs
to George Bush. |
