Too
Much Democracy?
Jesse Ventura, the
new governor of Minnesota, has become
a celebrity in part because of his
colorful background as an actor, Navy
Seal and professional wrestler, but
also because he was a third party candidate
who shocked everyone by beating two
veteran politicians from the major
parties. In this bastion of democracy,
Ventura was a rare example of a candidate
who the people felt would represent
them. Most of the time the choice is
restricted to Democratic or Republican
candidates whose views are not all
that different from each other and
don't reflect those of most voters.
Compare the American
political reality with that of Israel
where three parties have serious candidates
for Prime Minister, the newest of which
leads the polls, and at least 30 parties
are registered to field candidates for
the parliamentary election. The majority
of voters support one of the two parties,
but this is in large measure due to the
desire to vote for one that will run
the government. Still, it is far easier
to find a party that reflects a citizen's
views in Israel than in the U.S.
Also, here the system
is stacked against third party candidates.
It costs so much money and incumbents
have such incredible advantages in name
recognition, resources, and access to
the press that the Jesse Venturas are
oddities. In Israel, you need to win
only 1.5 percent of the national vote
to win a seat in the Knesset. Eleven
parties reached this threshold in 1996.
Of course, plenty of
Israelis lament that they have too much
democracy because having so many choices
has always prevented any of the parties
from winning a majority. Subsequently,
the party winning a plurality has been
forced to form coalitions with other
parties that use their ability to bring
down the government to advance their
agendas. Often the goals of these smaller
parties are different from those of the
citizens who elected the Prime Minister
and the result is cynicism and anger.
The most blatant examples
are of the religious parties, which have
always played key roles in the government,
and have used their influence to secure
funding for their institutions and protect
their control over certain aspects of
Israeli life, such as marriage and divorce,
commercial activities on Shabbat, and
acceptance of immigrants. From the point
of view of the majority that opposes
their policies, the religious parties
often thwart the will of the people.
On the other hand, it is also a democratic
idea that the rights of minorities should
be protected and the religious voters
use the ballot box to gain representation
to do that.
Think what would happen
if the Moral Majority was a party rather
than an advocacy group. If its candidates
won seats in Congress, supporters would
feel enfranchised. Certainly some candidates
in the Republican Party support similar
policies, but it is not the same as having
a political institution dedicated to
the Moral Majority's ideology. Groups
associated with the left, like environmentalists
could have parties as well, as is the
case in Europe. Our democratic system,
however, makes it nearly impossible to
form viable parties to compete with the
two majors. It's no wonder that voter
turnout in the U.S. hovers around 50
percent while nearly 80 percent of Israelis
go to the polls.
Of course, both the
United States and Israel offer stark
contrasts from the Arab countries in
the Middle East. In Syria, for example,
an election was just held that offered
the voters the choice of supporting Hafez
Assad or nothing. He won with a mere
99 percent of the "vote."
When King Hussein died, no elections
were held to determine the next ruler.
There was never any question that Yasir
Arafat would be the President of the
Palestinian Authority and discussions
of his successor never mention an election
to select between rival candidates; instead,
they focus on whom he will anoint or
who will win the power struggle when
Arafat dies.
For all its problems
and unwieldiness, I think I prefer Israel's
democracy, at least from the perspective
of giving its citizens a real chance
to choose representatives who share their
views. |