What to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, Tony Blair, and Angela Merkel have in common? They are all leaders that have gone down in the history of the western world and who served in their roles for much longer than eight years. And they aren't the only ones.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The history of democracies knows a lost list of outstanding figures who spent much longer in their roles than what the Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved on Monday for Israel's future leaders. With this background, the question is: Why? What reason is there to use the force of law to stop a talented person from serving as prime minister, as long as he does the job faithfully?
The people of Israel know from the municipal level that public leaders can hold the job for many years without it affecting their ability or contribution. Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai, the late mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek, former mayor of Karmiel Adi Eldar, Netanya Meyor Miraim Feirberg, Maaleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel, and Haim Bibas in Modi'in – these are all mayors who have served for much longer than eight years. Some of them served for 20. Only good came out of it.
On the national level, in contrast, history shows us that prime ministers serve a very short time – too short a time. In an era that requires long-term planning, very long-term, Naftali Bennett is the 13th prime minister of Israel since 1948. This means that each prime minister has served an average of 5.6 years. If we put aside Ben-Gurion and Netanyahu, who together spent 27 years as prime minister, the average term in office drops to four years. So why is it so urgent to put an artificial eight-year term limit in place?
Even before the political crisis of the last two years, the governments of Israel didn't tend to last for long. A technical cut to terms will only destabilize them more, at a time when we need stability, not increased turnover. Israel hasn't even been rescued from the political maelstrom that engulfed it. The government is still rotational, and enjoys only a single-MK majority. When everything hangs on a thread, why strike another blow?
What's more, experience shows us that changes to the rules of government in Israel leads to unexpected, negative results. In the 1990s a passing whim, similar to what is taking place now, led to a law for the direct election of the prime minister in a separate ballot. At the time, it was presented as a revelation that would save the government from chronic instability. The result was the exact opposite. The representative parliamentary system suffered a major blow from which it still hasn't recovered.
The frequent changes to the minimum electoral threshold and the number of cabinet ministers also haven't proven themselves. Knesset after Knesset has been forced to change what its predecessor decided. It's obvious that the same thing will happen with this law, too, if there is ever a popular prime minister in Israel who is appreciated by the coalition. If so, what have we achieved?
Israel's system of governance does need a change of norms and a government that works for the people – and not only for its own survival. But only a collective decision by all political players to adopt fair rules – and not pass dangerous law – will lead to the stability we long for.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
