A Message to my Colleagues at CECI  for 2010.
Persevere in our  Effort to Reform the Electoral System

1.      In sending you my greetings for the New Year I urge you to build upon the conclusions of The President Commission. We initiated and worked hard together for three full years to set it up and  produce its reports. We, Members of the Commission owe it to The Presidency and to the country to see its final conclusions on the issue of Electoral Reform adjusted to the new  realities of our politics today ready for legislation in the 18^th Knesset. Its Chairman, Professor  Menachem Megidor with the help of his successor Professor Menachem Ben Sasson gathered enough help in the last Knesset to table a Draft Law supporting our System.  CECI was entrusted by them to put this issue in the forefront of public concern.. It is only  right now to renew our efforts  and not be tempted to pass the buck to other institutes.

2.      In a recent detailed book on TR, Total Representation published in Zagreb and in London under the banner of the Electoral Reform Society I reviewed the work of the President Commission and drew conclusions on the state of the Parties in the last three Knessets delineating future trends. You will see in Chapter 13 that  Dr Fany Yuval of Ben Gurion University  conducted rigorous simulations showing how the introduction of the TR system as described here, if applied, would have changed the composition of the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th Knessets. Such changes would result in  creating larger groupings that ensure the stability of future Governments while safeguarding proper representation of our tribes and minorities in The Knesset. I recast her findings  in 13 tables, using various different possible scenarios and groupings of the members of these Knessets. The simulations were based on the actual votes cast at these elections, and were conducted according to recognised academic standards. I hope that our hard work would provide a useful back ground to a Draft Law soon. In the following  Table you find the gist of my analysis  summarised.

3.      But just a word on TR total Representation (Yitsug Shalem YESH ) The essence of TR is that the person who votes in a single constituency, is – with his/her single ballot – taking advantage of two voting systems at the same time. He/she is giving his first preference to one individual as his/her choice for an MK chosen in single member constituency using the first-past-the-post system of England . But as importantly he/she is also stating that if his vote is not counted towards a successful candidate of his/her  choice of MK, he/she then wants that vote not to be wasted, but to go to his political party to help elect another set of  countrywide MKs on behalf of his/her party under the present PR proportional representation system.  So the voter is sending two messages with one single vote in a single member constituency that ends up in electing the whole Knesset in an optimal  proportion of 90/30, although this proportion can be adjusted if desired to say 80/40.

TABLE 13 Comparative simulations

		16th Knesset (2003)		17th Knesset (2006)		18th Knesset (2009)
Party orientation	Party/list	Actual	Simulation	Actual	Simulation	Actual	Simulation
Fluid parties             Sub-totals	Shinui Pensioners Be’Aliya Beitenu Meretz/Greens Am Ehad Brit Leumi	15    -    2    -    6    3    - ----  26	6    -    1    -    3    1    2     13	-   7   -  11    5    -         - ----  23	-    2    -    7    3    -    - ----   12	-   -   -  15    3    -    - ----  18	-    -    -    9    1    -    - ----  10
Solid central parties     Sub-totals	Labour Likud Kadima	19   38     - ----   57	16  70    - ----  86	19  12  29 ----  60	11     4   63 ----   78	13  27  28 ----  68	4  35  45 ----  84
Solid right parties         Sub-totals	Shas Torah Judaism Mafdal Jewish Home Echud Leumi.	11    5    6    -    7 ----  29	4    5    1    -    3 ----  13	12    6    9    -    - ----  27	8    6    7    -    - ----  21	11    5    4    3    - ----  23	6    5    2    1    - ----  14
Solid Arab parties     Sub-totals	Hadash United Arab Balad	3    2    3 ----    8	6    1    1 ----    8	3    4    3 ----  10	5    2    2 ----    9	4    4    3 ----  11	6    5    1 ----  12
	Total	120	120	120	120	120	120

 Conclusions

 In order to point out some trends and draw some conclusions from the above table I grouped the parties into four categories.

 ·        The Fluid Parties seem to come and go. Each starts with a flourish and a fanfare, only to disappear soon afterwards. They are mainly secular in outlook and centred in and around Tel Aviv. Apart from Beitenu, their voters have supported Kadima in the recent elections. Beitenu is the exception. Its voters, backed by Russian immigrants, have more in common with Likud. Without the leadership of Avigdor Lieberman, its members will gravitate mainly towards, or might merge with, Likud.

·        The Solid parties are the old Zionist parties with ideologies and outlooks inherited from the two main streams of Zionism, led after the establishment of the State of Israel by the two flag-bearers Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. Labour and Likud are well defined. It is Kadima that is left undecided in a state of flux after the 2009 elections to the 18^th Knesset. Which side will it swallow or be swallowed up by?  In this category of solid parties there are only two places. One of the three has to give way.

·        Prime Minister Sharon set up Kadima to replace Likud. He then added a sprinkling of Labour leaders to facilitate his then-impending evacuation of Gaza, and in order to pave the road for peace with the Palestinians. He looked upon Tsipi Livni as a potential successor in the distant future. So  Kadima - call it New Likud  – was created by Sharon as a right-of-centre party. Sharon’s untimely withdrawal from politics was followed by an internal civil war between Tsipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, and later on at the party primaries between her and Shaul Mofaz – the hawk who was brought into Likud by Sharon. This has created a new situation that will force Kadima to fight to replace Labour as a new left-of-centre party. It will have no chance of replacing Likud, as the latter has already regained old Likud voters and consolidated its position in the Knesset, in the government and in the country at large as the right–of-centre party. The big question is: which party will lead the left-of-centre in the next general election? The fight for this position could prove to be life or death for one or the other of Kadima or Labour.

·        The Jewish religious parties, with the exception of Torah Judaism, are weakening as their supporters move to the bigger parties. The same applies to the Jewish ultra-nationalist parties, Mafdal and Jewish Home. It is interesting to note in this table that while the power of the Jewish religious parties is progressively weakening, that of the Arabs is strengthening both in the actual results and in the simulations.

·        Shas, the Sephardic Party, has two sides to it. On the one hand, it is deeply religious. Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef is holding it together tightly in that position. Without his spiritual leadership, it is difficult to predict its future. However it has another side to it, the welfare and socialist side. It is seen by the Sephardic community as the protector of their interests. But for how long? Unless it emphasises its social side, welcomes women and accepts traditional but not strictly religious members, it will continue to weaken. In this context it is important to remember that there has always been a difference between Western Jewry and its counterpart in the East. In the West, the dichotomy between religious and secular had a longer history; in the East, this division was never felt. Jews were Jews, because oriental Jews never wanted to be anything else and had no desire to assimilate. This Oriental/Sephardic view of Judaism as a culture and a way of life carried on into Israel. How long will it last? It is one thing to reject assimilation into Arab culture in Arab Countries; it is of course different in Israel, where they are being assimilated into other Jews. So the melting-away of Shas as a religious party is in the balance and a matter of time.

·        The power of the Arab vote has to be taken together with the Druze vote. The Druze have secured four seats out of 120, almost 4%, far beyond the proportion of their numbers in Israel’s total population, which is only 1.6 per cent. The reason for this is that they serve in the army and have no problem swearing allegiance to the State of Israel. Their communities are used to this in Syria and Lebanon. Moreover, while Muslim and Christian Arabs in Israel distance themselves from the Zionist Jewish parties, the Druze don’t have any qualms about that. In this Knesset, the Druze ran with the rabbits and hunted with the hounds. They won one MK in Balad (a Muslim Party) and one MK each in Kadima, Likud and Beitenu.

·        The support of Muslim Arabs for Zionist Jewish parties disappeared in the 18^th Knesset. In the 17^th Knesset of 2006, the following two candidates were elected as Labour MKs: Ghalib Majadle, a Muslim who was appointed by Olmert to the post of full cabinet minister, and Nadia Hilou, a Roman Catholic. Neither succeeded in surviving among the dwindling number of Labour MKs in 2009. This trend should worry equally both Jews and Muslims in Israel.

·        The Arab, mainly Muslim parties, on the other hand, are becoming stronger as independent groupings. That is fine and is what democracy is all about. The problems will start when Islamist elements infiltrate and take over one of them, which would sharpen the conflict with the main Jewish Zionist parties and could lead to conflict and even violence. Political leaders in Israel need to wake up in time to bring about internal reconciliation and pave the way to integrate all their Arab citizens inside Israel into the social and political fabric of the country. The introduction of TR can help in that direction.

 Aharon Nathan, January 1^st 2010

 Member of the President Commission on Government and Governance of Israel