A Publication of Yamin
Israel
P.O. Box 23678, Jerusalem 91236 Israel
Tel. 972-2-624-5676
972-054-407581 E-mail: yamin22@netvision.net.il
Multi-District
Elections: Facts and Fictions
M |
any Israelis, including academics,
believe that such is the smallness of this country, both in population and
geographical area, that multi-district or constituency elections are
inappropriate. They are wedded to
the existing parliamentary system whereby the entire country constitutes a
single electoral district in which parties compete and win Knesset seats on the
basis of Proportional Representation (PR). This, they believe, enables distinct groups, be they
ideological, ethnic, religious, or otherwise to be represented by correspondingly
distinct parties in the Knesset regardless of whether the individuals composing
these groups are dispersed throughout the country. They contend, moreover, that representation of geographical
districts leads to disproportionate representation of diverse groups as well as
gerrymandering. Let us distinguish
facts from fictions.
First,
it is not irrelevant to mention the fact that of 76 countries having democratic
elections for their lower (or only) branch of the legislature, 74 have
multi-district elections, and many of these countries, we shall see, are
smaller than Israel. If we ignore
the Netherlands, a homogeneous constitutional monarchy, it may then be said
that Israel is the only reputed democracy in which legislators are not
accountable to the voters in constituency elections. In other words, in Israel alone, an incumbent politician
does not have to defend his voting record against a rival candidate. If the incumbent violated his
previous campaign pledges, he need not worry about being publicly exposed by a
rival for his seat in the Knesset.
Second,
contrary to its advocates, proportional representation of distinct groups in a
single national district election does not ensure a partys fidelity to its
campaign pledges. In the 1992 election
campaign, the Labor Partys platform rejected recognition of, or negotiation
with, the PLO, as well as withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Once ensconced in office, however,
Labor betrayed the voters. So did
the Shas Party, which declared, in that 1992 campaign, that it would not join a
Labor-Meretz coalition. Much the
same may be said of the Likud in 1996. When Prime Minister Netanyahu declared on CNN that no one ever
expected him to accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the peace process, or meet
with Yasir Arafat, or withdraw from Hebron, he unwittingly admitted that
he had betrayed the expectations of those who voted for him. So much for the blessings of
proportional representation in the absence of multi-district elections.
The
fact that 74 democracies somehow manage to conduct the publics business by
means of multi-district elections should dispel the fiction that Israel cannot
function well or justly without its existing parliamentary electoral system,
where fixed party lists compete in a single country-wide election. The truth is that 52 years of this
system has engendered the shoddiest politics, culminating in the 1999
elections when 29 Knesset Members hopped over to rival parties in order to
obtain safe seats. Israels
political system smells to high heaven, and only the ignorant along with
self-serving politicians want to preserve it!
Hardly
anyone seems to recognize the fact that a heterogeneous country such as Israel,
where the entire country constitutes a single electoral district, is doomed to
political ineptitude and anarchy precisely because its political parties will
be more or less linked to distinct ideological, ethnic, or religious
groups. The Government or Cabinet
formed as a consequence of Israels parliamentary electoral system will seldom
be capable of pursuing rational and coherent national policies. For example, Israel has a variety of
competing school systems: the state system, the state-religious system, the
Tami school system, the independent Haredi system, the Maayan (Shas) system,
etc. Each of these systems
is linked to a particular political party or social movement. This politicization of the schools has
pernicious consequences. As one
commentator has noted, the Education Ministrys allocations are based on
political power rather than educational criteria. Moreover, when one political group succeeds in obtaining a
larger slice of the education budget for its constituents, other groups
bitterly complain that this has come at the expense of their children. The
politicized nature of the schools thus breeds inter-communal hatred and
rivalry.
Overlooked, however, is the
fact that Israels parliamentary electoral system contributes to this malignant
state of affairs. Suppose Israel
had multi-district elections. The country would then be divided into several
geographical electoral districts.
Let us assume that most of these districts will be heterogeneous. Those elected in such districts will
then have to represent a variety of opinions and interests rather than a
single-issue group. This will put
an end to single-issue parties and their narrow-minded politicians.
Israeli politicians are
often faulted for their lack of national vision. Hardly anyone sees the connection between this parochialism
and Israels parliamentary electoral systemand this, quite apart from the
narrow-mindedness produced by Israels 1.5% electoral threshold. That 74
democracies shun this electoral system is no accident. In this case, Israel would do well to
imitate the goyim!
A
profusion of electoral systems exist.
The simplest is the single-member district with plurality rule
(SMDP). The candidate receiving
the most votes in the district wins.
Opponents say SMDP disenfranchises minorities. This is rhetoric. First of all, the individuals composing
minorities not only vote, but they also have the opportunity to lobby their
districts representative. Second,
experience in the US indicates that minorities are not ignored by congressmen,
especially in closely contested districts.
It can also be argued (as
previously suggested) that SMDP requires elected official to represent diverse
opinions and interests, which can enlarge their intellectual horizons. Even if it is true that SMDP disproportionately
represents diverse groups, it is also true that PR with a low electoral
threshold multiplies small parties, paralyzes governments, such that minorities
themselves suffer as a consequence.
And it bears repeating that Israels parliamentary system enables
parties to ignore their voters with impunity.
In any
event, SMDP is employed in no less than 22 countries, including Canada, the
United States, and Great Britain.
Of these 22 countries, the following have smaller populations than
Israel: Bahamas, Barbados,
Belize, Botswana, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada,
Jamaica, Mocronesia, New Zealand, St.
Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St.
Vincent, Samoa, Trinidad &
Tobago, and Zambia. I have
capitalized those countries whose geographical area is smaller than
Israel. Incidentally, the 50 American
states employ SMDP, and their populations range from 480,907 (Wyoming) to
32,666,550 (California).
Of course, single-member districts with plurality rule is not
the last word. Some 54 countries employ other methods of representing
constituents. Districts may have
more than one representative, as in Australia; they may have run-off elections
to obtain a majority candidate, as in France; and they may even combine SMDP
for part of the legislature and PR for the remainder, as in Germany.
Of
the 54 countries just alluded to, the following have smaller populations than
Israel: CAPE VERDI, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Honduras, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Uruguay.
Again, the geographical area of the countries here capitalized is
smaller than Israel.
We see, therefore, that 28
countries have smaller populations than Israel, and of these, 18 are smaller in
area. This should dispose of
objections to multi-district elections on the basis of a countrys population
or size. I might also add
that many countries are as heterogeneous as Israel.
In a future paper, I will
discuss two electoral systems which would be appropriate for Israel, the
Preferential Vote system used in Australia and Ireland, and Personalized PR
used in Germany and Denmark (which systems avoid gerrymandering).
Allow me to conclude with a word addressed to extra-parliamentary groups in Israel which have a nationalist orientation. These groups cannot be sensible nationalists so long as they support Israels existing parliamentary electoral system, which system is inherently anti-nationalist!