Israel's citizens have only headed to the ballot box 21 times, and each time they did, the election was important, democratic and decisive.
For 20 years, the Labor party's predecessor Mapai in its various formulations was the relative majority party. This was the party that in 1947 made the critical decision on the U.N.'s Partition Plan for Palestine, contrary to the opinion of leaders on the Right and Left, to establish a state despite the knowledge it would result in an all-out assault by Arab armies and the acting IDF chief of staff's assessment that Israel's chances of emerging victorious were 50-50. The revolution of 1977 brought the Likud party to power, and it has held on to it for 31 of the 42 years that have since passed.
Democracy does not demand regime change. Its obligation is to allow the changing of the government in a smooth manner, in which the loser accepts the results and the winner understands that their time in office is limited. But when the government does not change for many years, voters begin to get the sense that their vote is of no significance and that those in power are there to stay. Those who serve in the government for years are apt to believe that they are irreplaceable because anyone that has yet to been given the opportunity to serve in office is inexperienced. The interest of the public and the individual are aligned, they believe: My continued service in office is the best thing for my people!
Even those, myself included who, saw the 1977 revolution as the end of the world and believed that the continuation of the Labor government, even after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, was preferable to the alternative, must admit that the dramatic elections on May 17 of that year were a shot in the arm for Israeli democracy. They must admit that it is not just the possibility of bringing about regime change, but regime change itself that is essential for maintaining genuine democracy.
Those serving in senior positions in the executive branch, regardless of whether or not they were elected to office, do not live ordinary lives. They are surrounded by people whose job it is to assist them, to answer a majority of their emails and counsel them on their responses and public appearances. These officials are very busy, a vast majority of them do not live in the same city in which they work. They do not take their children to and from that city's schools or afterschool activities. They only show up on the city's streets and in its markets on the day before the election. They do not wait in lines, and even if they wish this were not the case, they are disconnected from the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens, the same day-to-day lives they lived before entering office. Those that replace these officials will, if only for a few years, bring with them a vital breath of fresh air. That is until they begin to have the sense they too are irreplaceable, and until their replacement also becomes essential for the preservation of democracy.
