|
|
|
5763: Articles posted from September 2002-September 2003 Get the real situation in Israel every day.
Labor's choice Israeli democracy has been deteriorating for the last 30 years, since the occupation of the territories captured in the 1967 war turned into a colonialist venture, under which some subjects of the state have been denied civil rights accorded to the majority. But even if one artificially isolates the occupation as the main source of the decline in Israeli parliamentary democracy’s vitality, and looks only at the performance of the democracy for the citizens of the state, it is evident that the two major parties, Likud and Labor, have distorted the concept of parliamentary democracy into something almost unrecognizable. The current demand for “national unity” by the ruling Likud, which except for two brief periods in the 1990s has been in power since 1977, is a new low in that downward slide away from democracy. For a party that has been in every government since 1977, except for the Rabin and Barak governments of the 1990s, the Likud has consistently behaved as if it was still in opposition and since 1977, when it was in opposition, it was far from being a loyal opposition. It was perfectly politic for Menachem Begin to blame various ills on the previous governments, which had been formed by the same party for 29 years. But 10 years later, still in power, the Likud was still blaming the Labor party. And 10 years after that, still in power, blaming Labor remained the Likud’s main political line, other than its “Greater Land of Israel” ideologies. Except during Begin’s five years in power, the Likud consistently made forming a “national coalition” its election mantra, teaching the electorate two things: 1. Don’t believe politicians, because if a rival is so bad, why should they be brought into the government immediately after the election, and 2. Governments do not need critical oppositions. In fact, critical oppositions are bad for the state. Twice, the Likud behaved in a manner that ostensibly proved that a parliamentary opposition is bad for the national interest. The first time was during Rabin’s administration, when supposedly responsible national leaders from the Likud actively encouraged incendiary rhetoric against the government, and fomented rebellion in the streets, leading up to the infamous Kikar Zion demonstration, where the legally elected government was termed a government of murderers. The passion for “anti-incitement” legislation following Rabin’s assassination was twisted by Likud legislators such as Yisrael Katz, who once used chains to prevent free speech by Israeli Arab students, into legislation aimed at suppressing criticism of government policies. Free speech, like all freedoms in a democracy, cannot be divisible. Freedoms cannot be granted to some and denied to others, and especially not in the name of democracy. The second time was in the waning days of the Barak administration, when the finance minister pleaded with the Likud opposition to help push through a state budget, arguing that it was necessary for the health of the national economy. Instead of complying (as Labor most recently did, from the opposition), the Likud’s Silvan Shalom, since proven to be an incompetent finance minister, actively sought to sabotage the budget, using parliamentary trickery to push through populist laws that he knew would subvert the budget presented by Avraham Shochat. Labor, too, has contributed to the decline of Israeli democracy. Ever since 1977, Labor has failed as a parliamentary opposition, refusing to appreciate the importance of the role not only as a forge in which it consolidates its alternative to government, but as the machinery of criticism of the government’s behavior. Labor’s politicians behave as if they have been denied their birthright to form the government, not understanding that in a democracy, the birthright is to the freedom to oppose the government without being jailed for it – or termed a traitor, as the Likud’s rhetorical stance about “unity” governments’ being “national” governments indicate to those undereducated about democracy, which unfortunately now is nearing the majority of Israelis. But much more gravely, the Labor Party has consistently failed to recognize that its repeated failure at the polls, culminating in the Arab boycott of the 2001 elections, were a result of its inability to reach out to those most harmed by hardening economic and security policies of successive governments. The religious parties and the Arab parties have also contributed to the decline: the religious by keeping civics out of their classrooms and cynically using the principles of democracy and their swing vote to coerce government after government into financing those very school systems that keep civics out of their classroom. The Arab parties contributed to the decline by highlighting their common cause with the Palestinians and ignoring the day-to-day needs of their constituencies. Their boycott of the 2001 elections was the main reason for the impression of a Sharon landslide in that election. That landslide convinced Labor that its responsibility to the country was to join a Sharon government, rather than to reach out to disillusioned Arab citizens angry at the Labor government’s handling of the October 2000 riots, the negotiations with the Palestinian and the outbreak of the intifada. There is much talk nowadays about how toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime will enable democracy to begin to spread throughout the Arab world. But while dreams of a democratic Arab world remain theoretical, the example of “the only democracy in the Middle East” is fading. If Labor wants to prove its “national responsibility” it must serve as a loyal opposition, ready to back the government formed by Ariel Sharon whenever that government takes steps in the proper direction, in whatever sphere, and ready to fight the government through all the means and instruments offered by parliament, when the government is wrong. National unity in a democracy does not result from forming a multi-partisan coalition in which partners hold diametrically opposed views and the government’s purpose is to camouflage the differences; national unity in a democracy means agreeing to disagree in a civilized (parliamentary) manner, and to maintain a single consensus – that democracy means not only majority rule, but preservation of the rights of the minorities. Labor’s job now is to reach out in several directions – to Israeli Arabs, to the poor of the towns and villages outside the centers of the country, to the newly impoverished, to the Russian immigrants, to the overtaxed middle class – saying and proving in the Knesset, that it is looking out for their interests by making clear that a genuine peace process in which dialogue, not force, is the main mechanism for change, needs to be undertaken not only with the Arab world but with, and between, those seemingly disparate communities. In the coming months and perhaps years of opposition, Labor’s voice must be heard promoting a vision of Israel in which all members of society are given equal opportunity.
|
!!! News Now !!!  Peace 
Pleasure  Bookstore Contact About Archive Donate or use Paypal  Peace Buttons The Middle East at Amazon 
|
© Ariga 1995-2003. For republishing rights please contact the author of the specific article on this page. Permission is granted to link to this page.