The veneer of democracy slips again.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781.

If only we had such men as Thomas Jefferson to inspire Israel's political practitioners. Instead, what do we have?

Arrogance. It's what Israel's political elite is serving its public for breakfast, lunch, and supper. Israel's people have become so demoralized,numbed by the neglect and excesses of its public servants. Gestures thought unthinkable in other democracies, gestures which used to be unthinkable in Israel, are now par for the course.

In a Maariv interview, Yehezkel Dror indicated, through a rhetorical question, that advancing the "peace process" with the Palestinians is more important than bringing down the Olmert regime. There was no direct linkage in that sentence with the deliberation of the Winograd Commission. However, given that the executive political echelon was left unscathed, compared to the military, it is difficult to seperate the two. The gaffe exposed the tangible possibility that political partisanship had a significant influence on the outcome of the Winograd report. This is yet another outrage that pushes aside the veneer of "Israeli democracy" and lays bare the anti-democratic machine that controls this country's political process.

Prof. Dror and I actually conversed briefly about two years ago, early on in the effort to get Direct Representation for Israel off the ground. He had written a piece urging the adoption of a presidential executive system in Israel, a goal that is part of Shelanu's credo of individual responsibility and public service excellence. Through email contacts I was got his telephone number and called him. I asked whether he might have any interest in becoming part of Direct Rep's efforts to promote a presidential system. His reply was that he had no interest in any type of public activism; his expertise was exclusively for the benefit of the influential. This resonates closely with statements from his interview in last Monday's Jerusalem Post, including the following.

I'm an elitist. Eighty percent of the critical decisions affecting Israel are shaped by maybe 100 or 200 people, 300. These are my clients.

In all large governing structures, including representative ones, power is concentrated and the average individual has little influence in the formation of policy. In healthy democracies, the spectre of public outrage deters those who would usurp the public's trust and authority. That assumes direct, personal accountability to a voting public. That happens when people vote for individuals, not for parties.

Based on Dror's comments, I can only surmise that his support of a presidential system, or some "quasi-presidential" system, reflects a different philosophy than ours. His perspective is that a presidential system will be more effective and efficient, less encumbered by narrow interests. He thinks that a presidential system "will be better at decision-making."

Well, we agree with that. So, where do we differ? We believe that there is a moral imperative for a presidential system. We believe it is needed to protect the interests of the public, that a presidential system will place individuals, empowered by a majority vote, directly accountable to the citizens. Dror has not stated that he would endorse a system of direct election of a president; given his self-proclaimed elitism, would a majoritarian plebiscite be his first choice?

A power-grabbing elite seems to typify so much of the government. They might claim to be "public servants," but to them the term means "public minder," as if the public is not really fit to decide what's in its best interests, or to choose more directly who will serve them as a single nation. It's a cynical, dishonest reflection of democracy projected through a cracked lens.