The Political System in Israel: Government, Knesset, and Lawmaking

Professor Naomi Chazan

The new system of direct elections of the prime minister, implemented with the old list system of the Knesset, has had the dual effect of strengthening the mandate of the prime minister and creating a problem of governance. Because of the weakening of the Knesset, the current and the previous prime minister have adopted very hierarchical, almost dictatorial styles of ruling. At the same time their governments have been marked by continual crisis.

The implementation of direct prime ministerial elections has altered the Israeli party scene, a phenomenon that was especially pronounced during the most recent election. First of all, the two large ideological parties - Labor and Likud - lost a tremendous amount of strength and are now medium sized parties at best. The only ideological party to fare better in this election was Meretz, gaining one seat more than it held in 1996.

Secondly, the special interest parties, which function like pressure groups in the guise of parties, gained in strength. For example, both the Shas and Shinui parties exhibited a tremendous rise. Thirdly, some sectors are represented by more than one party. For instance, there are three parties representing Russian immigrants and four Arab parties. In summary, there are now many more parties, fewer large parties, and more special interest parties.

Most parties hold internal elections to determine the lists for Knesset seats. Some parties, such as Labor, hold primaries. When I last ran for re-election I called all the party members who had a vote (3,000+) to get their attention. Primary campaigns can be very expensive. To get into politics and high on the list a person needs three things. First, one needs public exposure. Candidates who are a ‘household name’ have a much better chance of getting elected than those who are not. Second, a candidate must have organizational skills, since she or he will need supporters throughout the country. Third, a potential candidate requires funding to accomplish these things.

Candidates who served previous terms and have proven themselves competent generally have good chances of being re-elected. However, this is not always the case. Candidates who have already served two terms must often have a 60 percent mandate within their parties to serve a third. Otherwise, even if this person obtains the usual requisite number of votes, she or he will not be included. In this situation positioning on the list becomes very important.

It is very difficult for women to obtain the exposure, organization and money needed for election, which explains their very low representation in Israeli politics. The only mechanism for overcoming this obstacle is an affirmative action quota system. Consequently most of the parties (with the obvious exception of the religious parties) endorse such a system. Labor requires that one in every ten candidates be a woman, Likud one out of every eight. However these quotas are meaningless. I, along with the other women in Meretz, fought to introduce a minimum 40 percent clause within our party. It is difficult for other minorities, such as Arabs in non-Arab parties, to achieve representation as well.

Once elected, Knesset members are prohibited by law from undertaking additional paid work. This policy was introduced in 1996 for two main reasons: a serving Knesset member should not be under obligation to any other source for his or her income and holding a Knesset seat is a full time job. Nevertheless, the job is temporary, and many Knesset members find themselves unemployed after failing to achieve re-election. Also, fulfilling the obligations of the Knesset often render an outgoing member politically unpopular, further exacerbating the difficulty of finding employment.

The Knesset performs the following three functions; it engages in lawmaking, government supervision and monitoring, as well as the introduction of issues to public debate and the molding of public opinion. Some members choose to add a fourth function: dealing with complaints from the public and helping individual citizens with their problems. This can, however, also be included as an essential component of the first three functions.

The Knesset is in session Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays from October until the beginning of April, and then again from mid-May until August. Knesset mornings are generally spent in committee meetings and afternoons in the plenary session, which is broadcast on cable Channel 33. On Sundays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays for the non-religious, members do party work such as touring the country.

The first role of the Knesset is lawmaking. Laws can be made by the government or by private members. For example, if I receive 20 citizen complaints concerning the misuse of weapons, I would begin to recognize that there is firearms problem, and accordingly draft a law that introduces a system of licensing firearms. After the law is drafted, I would put in on the Knesset table where it would sit for 45 days. After that I would be allowed to raise it and then call for a vote. Immediately, the proposed law would go before the appropriate committee, who would then prepare the legislation for its first vote. It would then return to the plenary for a first reading, and then to the committee for corrections, and so on. In the end, a private member’s bill will have four readings in the plenary and two separate sessions in committee.

Fewer people vote on non-controversial laws, while important legislation takes longer to pass. For example, I just passed a new law regarding the opening of all army positions to women that took seven years to clear the Knesset. On the other hand, I expect that my law stating that exact change must be given for a priced product will pass in only three or four months. In legislation the ideas come from the people. In the last eight years I have passed approximately 50 laws, the majority of which came from problems expressed to me by the people.

The second role of the Knesset is supervisory. Most serious supervision occurs in committees; I am on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. We often meet with the Chief of Staff, whose job is to answer our questions. This position is not subject to review by anyone except the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Each branch of the government undergoes this procedure; they sit in a committee and have to answer very difficult questions. This process gives the opposition tremendous power, but it is important for maintaining the integrity of the ministers and other officials.

A minister is required by law to appear in committee. However, in the past few months some ministers have not appeared before their committee when asked. There is a real battle between the Knesset and the government on many issues right now. Since the ministers neglect the Knesset and do not take it seriously as a supervisory body, the Knesset is now beginning to impose a variety of sanctions on the ministers. Two weeks ago the Knesset declared that any minister who fails to appear before his committee will be denied the privilege of raising laws related to his ministry. The Knesset will further block budgets to the ministry until the minister complies. As a last resort the Knesset will not allow him to speak in plenary.

Three tools aid parliamentarians in their supervisory role: the committee, the parliamentary question and the motion for agenda. The questions and motions are televised, so as to simultaneously influence public opinion.

Key issues that arise in the Knesset today include the peace process, social justice, equality, and the question of religion and state.

Of the three Knesset terms I have served, the current session is the most unruly and chaotic. The disorder stems from the large number of parties and from the seriousness of the issues. The primary problem, however, is the friction between the government and the Knesset. Since the introduction of direct elections we have been unable to estaa working relationship. Hence, the institutions, coalitions and opposition are all struggling for power.

The government can fall in four ways, three of which are connected with the Knesset. The Knesset has the power to make or break a government and its prime minister. The first way the Knesset can accomplish this is by a 61-member vote of no-confidence. Only one government in the entire history of Israel fell on a no-confidence vote. The second method is to deny the government approval of the budget (which does not require 61 votes). If, within three months of the first of any year the budget is not approved, the government is dismissed. The third and most common method of bringing down a prime minister in government is by agreement which is a law to disperse the Knesset along with the government. The fourth method is to impeach only the prime minister by collecting 80 signatures.

Many people are concerned about the stability of the current government. If this government falls within two years of the 1999 elections it will indicate that the system is flawed. Israel is undergoing a serious crisis of government at this time. Any prospective solution will involve reducing the number of parties. So far the government has come closest to falling over religious issues, rather than issues related to the peace process. However, if Barak succeeds in the peace process, he will not be removed from office. He understands the urgency of coming to agreements and implementing them, since otherwise there will be no reason for some members of the coalition, especially Meretz, to support the government. For Barak, success has become both a regional and political necessity.

Is Israel democratic? Our institutions are indeed democratic, despite the current disorder. However, democratic institutions do not necessarily make a democratic society. Therefore, on an institutional basis I will answer yes. On a societal basis I am much more hesitant.

We have a constitution based on the Basic Laws that have been passed. It is not a full constitution, but the laws cannot be changed without an absolute majority of 61. Those are the cornerstones of the constitution, and they have constitutional weight. I believe that constitutions have power and force only if they reflect the basic consensus in society. We essentially have a constitution for institutional matters. On human rights and social affairs, however, a gradual consensus is still developing. We should not force these matters into a constitutional form, but should allow them to develop in a piece-meal fashion.

Proportional representation systems, where one votes for parties rather than individuals, have the disadvantage of creating multi-party parliaments and coalition governments. However, the Israeli system is more representative than almost any other system. Each faction, from racist to communist, is represented in the Knesset. They fight from inside rather than outside the system. However, there are currently too many parties. The way of limiting this number is to raise the threshold percentage of the popular vote necessary for obtaining a Knesset seat. Currently, the threshold is 1.5 percent; however, for most Israelis, relatives may alone account for 1.5 percent of the population. Raising the threshold to 3 percent, meaning that each party would have to obtain at least four Knesset seats before they are even admitted, would eliminate half the parties in the Knesset today. Most likely the threshold will be raised to 2.5 percent.

Nevertheless, Israeli society is divided, and even if we raised the threshold to five percent, there would still be at least six or seven parties: a party of the right, a party of the center, a party of the left, a religious party, and an Arab party.

Societies cannot be changed, but systems of representation can. Direct elections can either be the best or the worst way to accomplish this change. In the United States and in Great Britain, over 50 percent of any electoral district is not represented, and the leader is essentially handed a four-year limited dictatorship. Therefore, there are advantages and disadvantages to the electoral system. Today, I would not change the proportional representation system, because I prefer to keep the extremists inside the system where their activities can be monitored. If they are outside the system, they may kill another prime minister. One of the most important issues in the democratization process is the electoral system, for it determines the capacity of future governments to govern.

Newly-elected Knesset members do not receive special training. For instance, I am a professor of political science, and when I entered the Knesset I thought I knew everything. It took me one month to realize that I knew next to nothing. Learning to be a member of parliament in terms of the issues takes years. I vote 20 times a day on anything from maternity benefits to educational curriculum, issues I know only a little bit about, but enough to know what I am voting on. Sometimes members come running in and ask, “How should I vote?” I say, “Vote for …” They press a button and then they walk out without the faintest idea of the subject on which they were voting.

What I like from being a Knesset member is the possibility of changing things and sometimes we indeed can. For example, it is my fate to always be in the minority in my party until I succeed. I was one of the first to say that we have to talk directly to the PLO, and we have to say the word ‘Palestinian state'. I was one of the first to say that we need a full withdrawal from Lebanon, even if it is unilateral. This is slowly becoming a majority position. Concerning Jerusalem, I belong to a minority now; only 40 percent of my party members say that the city of Jerusalem should be one city, two capitals, for two states. That is a slogan we are using, but I wrote about it for the first time in 1991, and I say it at every opportunity since. We brought it up for a vote in the Meretz Council two years ago, and received some 40 percent of the vote. If my political intuition serves me well, Meretz will be the first mainstream party to accept this position.

I believe it is a mistake to predict Israeli political trends. When Rabin was assassinated some of us said, “Let’s have elections now. We do not even want to let four or five months pass because we may lose on another issue.” By the time we dispersed and held elections seven months later, several bomb attacks had occurred in Jerusalem and Netanyahu had convinced half the population that he was going to pursue Rabin’s course. Nobody would have predicted in November 1995 that Netanyahu would be prime minister in June 1996. All we can do is to follow the trends and the trend today is the fundamental and political need for Barak to produce a peace process without which he will be in real trouble politically.