A letter of mine, clarifying my perspective regarding the direct election of the Prime Minister in the 1990s, was published in today's Jerusalem Post. You can read it at the following web address.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411413619&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
It reads as follows.
For real reform
Sir, - Kudos to Gil Hoffman for his recent pieces on electoral reform efforts ("Power to the people" (September 7) and its follow-up on Shelanu ("New electoral reform," September 10). Articles like these should remind us, especially those who feel alienated and helpless in Israel's quagmire of poor governance, that the source of political power in any democracy is the public. Citizen activism can make a crucial difference.
I would like to clarify one issue on the reporting of my perspective: While I do believe that the direct election of every Knesset member is vital, I don't claim that its absence primarily caused the direct election of the prime minister to fail. That effort at reform was acutely flawed because of a different combination of incompatible principles in action.
Individual accountability and executive discretionary authority, facilitated by the direct election of the prime minister, were trumped by a coalition system of executive power-sharing meant to deny that very same discretion to the prime minister. Once Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were directly elected by the public, the Knesset could circumvent the public's choice by bringing down the government in a vote of no-confidence at any time thereafter, upon a coalition's weakening. This constant threat forced these PMs to prioritize coalition demands over the public interest and campaign promises. As non-separate entities with shared personnel and management, either the legislative branch hobbled the functioning of the executive branch, or vice versa.
A presidential executive system, effectively separating the legislative from the executive branch, would go a long way toward rectifying this problematic situation. It should be an integral part in a comprehensive change, including the direct election of legislators, to rehabilitate our system of government into one that truly serves the interests of the Israeli public.
MICHAEL JAFFE
Director, Shelanu
Zichron Ya'akov
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Jerusalem Post Follows Up on.... US!!
After I sent a quick email to Jerusalem Post reporter Gil Hoffman, (who penned last Friday's piece on political reform, "Power to the people,") Gil called me on the phone and interviewed me. That interview was reported in today's Jerusalem Post in an article called, "New electoral reform movement Shelanu launches plan to directly elect 120 MKs." You can read it at the following web address.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392576615&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
The article was short and to the point. While he was a bit fuzzy about my views on the the direct election of the prime minister, I am very grateful for the opportunity he's given me. Now, I really have to get that amutah (non-profit organization) application finished and submitted!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392576615&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
The article was short and to the point. While he was a bit fuzzy about my views on the the direct election of the prime minister, I am very grateful for the opportunity he's given me. Now, I really have to get that amutah (non-profit organization) application finished and submitted!
Friday, September 07, 2007
In Today's Jerusalem Post
Today's Jerusalem Post included an article in the "In Focus" magazine section, titled "Power to the people," dealing with currents and undercurrents of electoral reform. You can read it at the following address:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392551714&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
Among other things, the article describes the work of the people at CEPAC. CEPAC is the Citizens' Empowerment Public Action Committee. CEPAC advocates, among other reforms, the direct election of 60 MKs (half the Knesset) in 60 single-representative districts. The CEPAC web site's "Background and Goals" page, at http://www.cepac.org.il/Site/Site_ViewPage.asp?id=3, states
"Ideally we would like all 120 M.K.'s elected by district (perhaps a future goal) but realistically we feel that the 60-60 split has the best chance of being adopted."
Just because an alternative is easier to achieve in the short term doesn't mean it is the better alternative. CEPAC has good intentions and good people working for it; I know and respect their leaders. However, compromising on vital principals of governance in order to achieve quicker results is not a winning strategy. Such a compromise may nullify any potential gains in public service that these good people are working so hard to achieve. It's worth waiting a while longer, working a little harder, to get it right. It's worth being stubborn.
We, at Shelanu, don't think that the public should have to compromise on principles of true representation. We certainly don't owe senior members of the major parties guaranteed job security as MKs. We believe that all members of Knesset should be elected by the same criteria. We believe that the public should have the last and only say in how it wants to be served, in which form of representative democracy. We believe that the public can bring about the changes it wants if it well organized around focused, principled goals.
We have good reason to believe that such partial compromises will not result in progress towards our goal of the direct election of all Knesset members. When the influence of directly elected MKs is diluted, such that they constitute only half of the Knesset, narrow interests and corrupting influences have a good chance of derailing legislation in the public interest. In the past, we saw an important reform, the direct and separate election of the prime minister, become tainted and then abandoned because of a tragic "compromise" of its applied principle; the cause of government reform was set back over a decade.
Real reforms don't occur very often. If we're going to make the effort to reshape Israel's political culture, there is no point in aiming for the mediocre, no point in gratefully accepting what today's failed legislators are willing to offer. An unsatisfied employer does not let a mediocre employee decide how to run the business. It is time to get serious about reform, time to decide what we, the People, want and pursue it. It doesn't take a PhD to understand the principles of good governance. It does take steadfast determination to achieve worthwhile change.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392551714&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
Among other things, the article describes the work of the people at CEPAC. CEPAC is the Citizens' Empowerment Public Action Committee. CEPAC advocates, among other reforms, the direct election of 60 MKs (half the Knesset) in 60 single-representative districts. The CEPAC web site's "Background and Goals" page, at http://www.cepac.org.il/Site/Site_ViewPage.asp?id=3, states
"Ideally we would like all 120 M.K.'s elected by district (perhaps a future goal) but realistically we feel that the 60-60 split has the best chance of being adopted."
Just because an alternative is easier to achieve in the short term doesn't mean it is the better alternative. CEPAC has good intentions and good people working for it; I know and respect their leaders. However, compromising on vital principals of governance in order to achieve quicker results is not a winning strategy. Such a compromise may nullify any potential gains in public service that these good people are working so hard to achieve. It's worth waiting a while longer, working a little harder, to get it right. It's worth being stubborn.
We, at Shelanu, don't think that the public should have to compromise on principles of true representation. We certainly don't owe senior members of the major parties guaranteed job security as MKs. We believe that all members of Knesset should be elected by the same criteria. We believe that the public should have the last and only say in how it wants to be served, in which form of representative democracy. We believe that the public can bring about the changes it wants if it well organized around focused, principled goals.
We have good reason to believe that such partial compromises will not result in progress towards our goal of the direct election of all Knesset members. When the influence of directly elected MKs is diluted, such that they constitute only half of the Knesset, narrow interests and corrupting influences have a good chance of derailing legislation in the public interest. In the past, we saw an important reform, the direct and separate election of the prime minister, become tainted and then abandoned because of a tragic "compromise" of its applied principle; the cause of government reform was set back over a decade.
Real reforms don't occur very often. If we're going to make the effort to reshape Israel's political culture, there is no point in aiming for the mediocre, no point in gratefully accepting what today's failed legislators are willing to offer. An unsatisfied employer does not let a mediocre employee decide how to run the business. It is time to get serious about reform, time to decide what we, the People, want and pursue it. It doesn't take a PhD to understand the principles of good governance. It does take steadfast determination to achieve worthwhile change.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Party for Sale
The travesty that is Israeli democracy has hit a new low in absurdity. On Tuesday, Ehud Barak announced that the Labor party would not be leaving the government coalition. Might this have something to do with any feeling of solidarity between Labor and Kadima? Is this a case of uncharacteristically galant political non-partisanship towards addressing national issues? Apparently not.
Barak explained that the Labor party must stay in the government because it is too broke to run in an election. "We cannot win an election as a charity case," Barak told Labor's executive committee. Under his leadership, Barak promised that the finanacial situation would be rectified, "and after that face the political challenge ahead..." While campaigning for the leadership of Labor, Barak promised that he would inititate early elections upon release of the Winograd Committee Report on last summer's Lebanon War.
Two troublesome and inescapable conclusions arise from Barak's financial justification. First, never has it been so clear that political principles are for sale in Israel. That Israelis tolerate it, and individuals still vote for parties with leaders that flaunt it, is good reason to worry about Israel's public political culture. Second, there is an easily imagined possibility that Barak plans to exact financial advantages from his position of leverage in the coalition. Might public tax money end up paying for the financial rehabilitation of the Labor party?
Not only is Labor's bank account empty, so are its ethical principles and the promises of its leadership. This isn't Labor's problem alone, though. In this political system, with proportionalism denying the direct influence of the public in the selection of representatives and leaders, the game is musical chairs. Do whatever you can to maintain your seat; how you do it is unimportant. Lots of Israeli voters want to vote for "a winner;" what many don't realize is that by electing the party leadership choice, they are usually electing mediocrity. So, while they might be voting for proportionally elected "winners," the resulting mediocre, corrupt, inept public service the voters eventually receive makes them, and all of us really, losers.
Barak explained that the Labor party must stay in the government because it is too broke to run in an election. "We cannot win an election as a charity case," Barak told Labor's executive committee. Under his leadership, Barak promised that the finanacial situation would be rectified, "and after that face the political challenge ahead..." While campaigning for the leadership of Labor, Barak promised that he would inititate early elections upon release of the Winograd Committee Report on last summer's Lebanon War.
Two troublesome and inescapable conclusions arise from Barak's financial justification. First, never has it been so clear that political principles are for sale in Israel. That Israelis tolerate it, and individuals still vote for parties with leaders that flaunt it, is good reason to worry about Israel's public political culture. Second, there is an easily imagined possibility that Barak plans to exact financial advantages from his position of leverage in the coalition. Might public tax money end up paying for the financial rehabilitation of the Labor party?
Not only is Labor's bank account empty, so are its ethical principles and the promises of its leadership. This isn't Labor's problem alone, though. In this political system, with proportionalism denying the direct influence of the public in the selection of representatives and leaders, the game is musical chairs. Do whatever you can to maintain your seat; how you do it is unimportant. Lots of Israeli voters want to vote for "a winner;" what many don't realize is that by electing the party leadership choice, they are usually electing mediocrity. So, while they might be voting for proportionally elected "winners," the resulting mediocre, corrupt, inept public service the voters eventually receive makes them, and all of us really, losers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)