Looking back, 2019-2020 will be remembered as a historic year, in which, unprecedentedly, Israel was unable to construct a government and had to hold three rounds of elections in one year. Right up until election day, polls indicated the predicament would continue, namely – the lack of a decisive choice.
Conceptually and structurally, it doesn't matter if come Tuesday morning a clear decision is reached or not. This political crisis reflects a malfunctioning political culture – and this election season should motivate us to fix it.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Israeli society is an immigrant society. Its citizens brought with them distinct cultures and different political conventions from many countries and from diverse communities. However, unlike the United States, where the founders and leaders were able to establish national rules of the political game that were agreed on by all parties, Israel has yet to complete formulating its rules. Its political system often evades confronting unresolved core issues that significantly encumber Israeli cohesion.
Of course Israel is not alone in having to deal with complex political issues and moral dilemmas. Many democratic countries must deal with core issues – and they do. Because if they don't, the condition of the citizenry may deteriorate even further.
They choose to adopt – each as part of its own democratic system – overarching principles that are agreed by all. In practice this leads to decisions – or at least compromises between different values – on conflictual policy issues, or to the partial adoption of policies. For the most part the fundamental rules are set down in constitutions, sometimes in the wake of a social struggle.
Israel is different: it has yet to choose such fundamental consensual rules. True, there is a consensus – which has been growing weaker in recent decades – that decisions should go through the "right channels" – the Knesset and the government. But the issue of governability and responsibility for decision-making is still in dispute.
Above all, Israeli politics is plagued by chronic procrastination. The political system simply does not address, in a profound and fundamental manner, questions that are subject to principled debate. Israeli society does not solve its problems, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, does not show flexibility and a willingness to compromise. We live according to the "status quo" – in all fields.
However, since social life abhors a vacuum, we have adopted alternative methods. First – improvisation. We'll get by somehow, "putting out fires" as they come. Sometimes it is even worse: an instant solution is offered, instead of an in-depth discussion. That's how we've arrived at an election year with promises for a solution "once and for all" of religious and political issues, or assurances to "determine the borders now or never."
On the other hand there is a tendency to "authorize," or is it to "coronate," alternative rulers, such as the Supreme Court, which is often forced to decide in place of the decision makers. But this "method" is also not foolproof.
When a society must cope with a threat, it behaves differently. Thus, for example, long-term planning was and is to be found in Israel, mostly in the security field. This means that devising long-term policy is possible, if the will exists to do so.
However, we should not blame everything on the political system, which, after all, reflects the public's maturity in being able to deal with fundamental discord. Hopefully, the election's final outcomes will signal to the country's leaders that the public has matured.
Prof. Assaf Meydani is dean of the School of Government and Society at the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo
