The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

During last month’s Jerusalem Summit, the world renowned Professor Bernard Lewis said, in effect, that democracy in Israel is endangered by the fact that members of the Knesset are not individually accountable to the voters in constituency elections.

Another distinguished professor, who once served as a science adviser to the government, has gone even further. He concluded that “electoral reform in Israel is a necessary precondition for changing the disastrous course of this country.”

The reform in question means nothing less than empowering the people. (more…)

Tomorrow I leave on a three-week lecture tour of the United States. My primary topic will be “What Can You Do To Save Israel?” Before I leave, let me set the record straight and propose a very modest political revolution.

Back in January 1988, one month after the Shamir government failed to quell the first intifada, I wrote an article in The Jewish Press calling for the establishment of a “government in exile.” As a political scientist who has seriously studied Machiavelli, I harbored not the slightest thought or hope that any prominent person would adopt this far-fetched proposal.

After all, the great Aristotle taught politics is the art of the possible. An impossible proposal is not a political proposal; it nothing more than propaganda, at best having some pedagogical value or intention. I understood quite well that no one would act on my proposal, but that it was worthwhile floating the idea that Israel’s existing government, having failed to secure the lives of its citizens, forfeited its legitimacy and was no longer worthy of public support or loyalty. (more…)

The Jerusalem Conference concluded Wednesday night with a packed-house lecture by Bernard Lewis, a world-renowned expert on Islamic history and the relationship between Islam and the West. An author of 30 books, Lewis coined the phrase “clash of civilizations” in his work The Roots of Muslim Rage, written 11 years before 9/11.

Electoral Reform

“Israeli democracy, like its other edges, is in danger—and here I would like to put in a word for electoral reform. There is no direct election here, and therefore the representatives are not held accountable to anyone other than their party leaders and directorates. In addition, minor splinter groups are granted more importance than they deserve proportionally, and the entire system encourages corruption.” [Emphasis added.]

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. Professor Yehezkel Dror, a member of the Winograd Committee as well as a world-renowned Israel Prize Laureate in public policy, announced, at the prestigious Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, that Israel must replace its parliamentary system to improve decision-making, which failed so miserably during the Second Lebanon War.

Professor Dror thereby affirmed what the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, founded by the present writer and Dr. Mark Rozen of blessed memory, have advocated in books, policy papers, public lectures, radio and television programs, and countless articles since 1995.

Let me explain Dror’s statement insofar it was reported by The Jerusalem Post on February 6, 2008. (more…)

As noted by professors Rein Taagepera and Matthew Shugart, “a main function of an electoral system is to preserve political stability in the face of potentially disruptive or paralyzing disagreements on issues.” Since Proportional Representation (PR), as a general rule, multiplies the number parties, then, as indicated in Part II, the number of possible disputes in government increases roughly as the square of the number of actors.

However, diminishing the degree of proportional representation—say by combining national list PR with single-member plurality districts—does not necessarily diminish the number parties in the legislature (or in multi-party governments like Israel). Italy recently diminished PR, but the number of parties remained virtually the same because new issue dimensions arose, serious enough to trigger the formation of new parties. This only indicates that politics is more complicated than electoral rules, although the significance of such rules should not be minimized, let alone ignored. (more…)

Part I cited the renowned expert on electoral rules professor Rein Taagepera. Perhaps his most telling point is this: “As the number of actors increases, the number of possible disputes increases roughly as the square of the number of actors.” This obviously applies to Israel, whose government typically consists of roughly 20 cabinet ministers representing rival political parties. No wonder the average duration of Israeli governments since 1948 is less than two years! This short tenure renders it virtually impossible for the government to pursue coherent, consistent, and long-term national policies.

Here I am reminded of the warnings and wisdom of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 62, where he defends the six-year tenure of the Senate, a defense that applies to Israel’s Knesset as well as to its Government despite their prescribed (but unrealized) tenure of four years: (more…)

Professor of social sciences Rein Taagepera and political scientist Matthew Soberg Shugart are renowned experts on electoral systems. Israeli politicians should study their book Seats and Votes.

Taagepera and Shugart use mathematical models in studying scores of electoral rules. Their research is especially relevant to Israel, not only because the government is working on a constitution, but also because it is considering a proposal to make the leader of the party that wins the largest number of seats in a Knesset election Israel’s prime minister.

That Kadima won 29 seats (the most of any party) in the 2006 election would have been sufficient to make Ehud Olmert prime minister without his having been designated by the president to form a government and have it approved by the Knesset. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 7, 2008.

Having learned of my critique of Israel’s political system, people have asked me how did this dysfunctional system originate? To answer, I will cite a publication of the Beth Hillel Society for Social Research in Israel supplemented by passages from David Ben-Gurion’s Memoirs.

In June 1953, the Hillel Society published a pamphlet “Electoral Reform in Israel.” The pamphlet was based on discussions the Society held in October 1952. The pamphlet outlines the emergence of Israel’s parliamentary system.

Thus, on May 14, 1948, 37 Jews met in Tel-Aviv and published a Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed the creation of the State of Israel. These 37 Jews constituted the Jewish People’s Council, which had been set up in two months earlier. The Council was composed firstly, of all political parties in the country, and secondly, of the Executive of the Jewish Agency according to the election returns of the twenty-second Zionist Congress, which had convened in Basel, Switzerland in 1946. This 37-man body declared itself, on May 14, 1948, the Provisional State Council of Israel. (more…)

Few people in Israel have anything but the most superficial knowledge of representative democracy and its prerequisites. But then, what else should be expected in a country whose ministry of education systematically omits this topic from the public school curriculum and where even universities seem to be black holes on the subject?

It should first be understood that constituency or multi-district elections is a prerequisite of representative democracy. What is not widely known is that representatives divide their constituencies into four distinct groups of voters, each of which they treat differently.

1. 1)  The largest group of voters is the district as a whole, or the Geographic Constituency. (more…)

In word and in deed, MK Aryeh Eldad [National Union/NRP] has been perhaps the most outspoken and courageous opponent of Israel’s withdrawal from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Many people look to him as a possible leader of the “nationalist camp.”

I place the words “nationalist camp” between inverted commas because there is no such creature. It’s merely an aggregation of individuals and groups which, year after year, have monotonously opposed the policy of “territory for peace.” Alas, these right-minded people not only lack a coherent, comprehensive, and realistic program to save Israel from the deadly consequence of the “peace process.” They also seem to be unaware that a nationalist camp cannot be truly nationalist unless the nation—the Jewish People—is properly represented in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial institutions of government. The State of Israel has never had such institutions. Here I am merely paraphrasing what David Ben-Gurion wrote in his Memoirs. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 26, 2007.

1. Since the Camp David Summit of 1978, Israel has had no less than ten governments led either by the Likud, Labor, or Kadima. Whether “Zionist” or “post-Zionist,” “rightwing” or “leftwing,” all have pursued the same policy of “territory for peace.” All have contributed to the physical truncation and spiritual emasculation of Israel—and with the collaboration of the religious parties.

2. It were as if the same government had been in power for almost 30 years! Yet certain Knesset members—with the American presidency in mind—tell us: “How can we endure four years of Olmert?” This ad hominem argument betrays unforgivable ignorance about Israeli government as well as about American government. On the territorial issue, Israel has had 30 years of “Olmert.” (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 5, 2007. This Report is an abbreviation of a 24-page policy paper, “The Fixation of Israel’s Elites on Land for Peace: Five Interpretations,” scheduled for publication by a major journal in December.

Part I

People everywhere are bewildered by Israeli politics. They cannot fathom the motives of Israel’s ruling elites, their addiction to the futile and fatal policy of territory for peace. What really motivates these politicians?

Some pundits say they are stupid or mad or suffer from a Jewish “death wish.” Others say that Israel’s dependency on U.S military aid compels Israeli prime ministers to genuflect to Washington. Let me offer an alternative explanation.

When I made aliya in 1976, I was amused to hear people say that the paramount concern of Israeli politicians is their “seats.” (more…)

Several years ago, the heads of Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism spoke of the need for Jewish unity. Lack of Jewish unity is especially obvious and needed in Israel.

Some critics asked: “Yes, we need Jewish unity, but for what national purpose? And what hinders Jewish unity in Israel?” Here I limit myself to the second question.

Perhaps it will be helpful to substitute for unity “friendship,” and inquire into what militates against friendship in Israel. (more…)

A. Democracy: Two Types

1. “Normative” or classical democracy: based on the idea of man’s creation in the holy image of God. This provides democracy’s basic principles, freedom and equality, with rational and moral constraints. (Freedom is not “living as you like,” and equality is not a leveling but and elevating principle. The holy nation is a “kingdom of noblemen.”)

2. “Normless” or contemporary democracy. No ethical standards. Freedom is living as you please, and equality leads to vulgarity via the equivalence of all lifestyles. (Moral equivalence: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Arafat is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.) (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 3, 2007.

The Norwegian scam is another name for the Norwegian Law now sponsored by Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Applied to Israel, the Norwegian Law would require Knesset members who become cabinet ministers to resign their seats, which will be filled by others members on their respective party’s electoral list. The Knesset would thus retain 120 members to focus on legislation and would have no ministerial responsibilities.

However, since the MKs who become cabinet ministers remain the leaders of their respective parties, Israel will remain plagued by multi-party cabinet government, only now the public will have to pay the salaries and perks for at least 24 more MKs—and that’s a lot of money.

As I have often pointed out, the system of multi-party cabinet government is intrinsically divisive, inept, and conducive to corruption. (more…)

It has been reported that left-wing extremists and Palestinian Arabs destroyed thousands of grape vines belonging to local Jews in Samaria yesterday.

This would never have happened if Israel had a truly Jewish government. It is precisely the anti-Jewish character of Israel’s government that encourages leftwing extremists (and Arabs) to destroy Jewish property—and with the obvious intention of eradicating Judaism in all of Eretz Israel.

We see here further evidence of the civil war mentioned in a previous article of mine—The War Between Jews and Jews. (more…)

Courtesy of  Free Republic.

Posted 15 August, 2007 by Mike Baker.

Through a chain of events and people I have met online, I became aware of the Middle East Radio Forum (MERF), hosted by Attorney William J. Wolf, based in Phoenix. I have listened from time to time, as most of the time we are out and about Sunday at noon.

Friend Dr. Steve Carol, retired historian, sent out an email imploring his email list to listen this past Sunday, August 12. I was home, so I did. I am very glad I did.

The guest was Professor Paul Eidelberg with the The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, interviewed from Israel. The topic was “The lack of leadership in Israel and is a two-state solution possible?” (more…)

As you know, the slogan of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation.”

Well folks, in honor of that Revolution, allow me to say that the taxation levied by the British government on Americans was nothing compared to the taxation Israel’s government inflicts on the Jews of this country—and yet these Jews also lack representation—genuine representation!

So what do we see here in Israel? (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, June 18, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu was interviewed by Victoria Vexelman of the Russian Channel-7. I have an English rendering of excerpts of that interview and will comment on Netanyahu’s stated position on key issues.

Vexelman asked Netanyahu: “What is your attitude to the idea of a law to extend Israel’s sovereignty on those territories where there is no Arab population?”¹ [Vexelman apparently has in mind Israeli annexation of those areas of Judea and Samaria where Jewish communities are located, as well as those areas of Judea and Samaria where neither Jews nor Arabs are located. Jewish sovereignty over these areas would preclude the establishment of a Palestinian state.] (more…)

Interviewed last week in The Jerusalem Post, left-wing Professor of Law Uriel Reichman said that Israel’s system of government is seriously flawed.

Left-wing Political Scientist Naomi Chazan said as much of the system in the same newspaper.

Question 1: Is it not strange that two eminent leftists should affirm what the present writer, reputedly a “right-winger,” has been saying for two decades? (more…)