Refusal for a referendum on pullout is an indication of a bigger problem

[KettleWhistle]

As the Knesset positively voted on the pullout from Gaza and parts of the West Bank the question on the minds of many in the opposition to this plan should be that of legitimacy. Is it right for one man, the Israeli Prime Minister, to have the power to pull though something that was not mandated by either the people that elected his party or the members of his party that elected him to be the country's leader?

For comparison, let's consider the office of the President of the United States, which in the opinion of many is the most powerful office in the world. Yet, no American President has the power or a mandate from the people to pull off something like what was done by Sharon. No U.S. president can reshuffle the legislature in order to form an alliance that would give him or her the power to pull off a personal political agenda.

Likewise administrative and secessionist divisions cannot be accomplished by a mere group of politicians. In the U.S., a Vermont town recently voted to secede from the state and to join New Hampshire. It was not done a handful of politicians, and is still due to be voted upon by the resident of the state of Vermont. Similarly, a secession proposal for several cities incorporated into the Greater Los Angeles area were put up for a public vote, rather than that of city leaders. Outside of the U.S., Canadians citizens voted on the issue of Quebec—another example of democracy at work.

Sure Israel isn’t the U.S. or Canada, which begs the question about what is different. I have to say that the problem is the lack of clear separation of powers. This may not be a problem in the current state of affairs in the Israel, but it is a problem for the country if it wished to be a democratic one because democracy implies the rule of the people. A rule of one man over people in the way of bypassing people by manipulating the ruling coalition memberships is not that.

So what’s the solution? I believe it lies with the separation of powers. As it stands, Israel does not have separate legislature and the executive branches of the government. Rather, the PM is the man that has the ability to control both. Hence the government has become something other than that of the people and for the people, and this is something that needs to change.

[Womble]

But wouldn't the same be true for every parliamentary democracy where the prime minister is the head of state? Are you suggesting that Israel would be better off with a presidential system?

[KettleWhistle]

But wouldn't the same be true for every parliamentary democracy where the prime minister is the head of state?

That would depend on the particulars. But generally speaking, I believe that the point of democracy is to have a government that represents the will of the people. As such, government ough to be open to people, and there need to be safeguards that ensure that people's will, not that of politicians and rulers, is being served.

Are you suggesting that Israel would be better off with a presidential system?
I think that Israel could benefit from having separation of powers and a system of checks and ballances.

[Womble]

That would depend on the particulars. But generally speaking, I believe that the point of democracy is to have a government that represents the will of the people. As such, government ough to be open to people, and there need to be safeguards that ensure that people's will, not that of politicians and rulers, is being served.
The problem is that the point of democracy is, first and foremost, to have a government that effectively serves the interests of the people rather than "represents their will", if by that one understoods putting the government at the mercy of the electorate's whims and fancies. Yes, people should have a say, but no government can be effective if it is forced to only carry out decisions supported by the majority. The government must have enough operational freedom to conduct their policy even when it is contrary to the people's wishes if needed, or else nothing will ever be accomplished.


I think that Israel could benefit from having separation of powers and a system of checks and ballances.
But there IS such a system in Israel. The Knesset did defy Sharon a good few times, and so did the High Court. There are Basic Laws that function as a Constitution. I don't see what "system of checks and balances" we lack. What does Britain have that we don't?

The tricks with which Sharon pushes through the Knesset the legislation he finds necessery can be just as effectively applied to any other democratic system. He skillfully maneuvers between our two dozen parties, that's true- but that is still playing by the rules.

The only problem I see is the "sectoral politics" of some of the Israeli parties, who seem to be supporting anything for as long as they're given their share of the budget and minister chairs.

And frankly, the referendum idea is not very smart. The whole process will again boil down to who is a better salesman- Sharon or the settlers. I don't see the point of that.

[Ophra]

The problem is that the point of democracy is, first and foremost, to have a government that effectively serves the interests of the people rather than "represents their will", if by that one understoods putting the government at the mercy of the electorate's whims and fancies. Yes, people should have a say, but no government can be effective if it is forced to only carry out decisions supported by the majority. The government must have enough operational freedom to conduct their policy even when it is contrary to the people's wishes if needed, or else nothing will ever be accomplished.


But there IS such a system in Israel. The Knesset did defy Sharon a good few times, and so did the High Court. There are Basic Laws that function as a Constitution. I don't see what "system of checks and balances" we lack. What does Britain have that we don't?

The tricks with which Sharon pushes through the Knesset the legislation he finds necessery can be just as effectively applied to any other democratic system. He skillfully maneuvers between our two dozen parties, that's true- but that is still playing by the rules.

The only problem I see is the "sectoral politics" of some of the Israeli parties, who seem to be supporting anything for as long as they're given their share of the budget and minister chairs.

And frankly, the referendum idea is not very smart. The whole process will again boil down to who is a better salesman- Sharon or the settlers. I don't see the point of that.

Very good answer .

[KettleWhistle]

The problem is that the point of democracy is, first and foremost, to have a government that effectively serves the interests of the people rather than "represents their will", if by that one understoods putting the government at the mercy of the electorate's whims and fancies.

The point here is for the government to be open. If the government merely serves the interests of the people, it is a tyranny. Democracy is not that. Rather it is a system where, at least in theory, the government is that of the people and for the people. California's recall of the governor and election of Arnold Schwartzenegger was a good example of that. Do you believe that action placed the government at the mercy of the electorate's whims and fancies? I don't think so. You can love or hate our current governor, but you'd have to agree that this brough in a sense of responsibility and a clear message to the elected officials that they will be held accountable for what they do.

But there IS such a system in Israel. The Knesset did defy Sharon a good few times, and so did the High Court. There are Basic Laws that function as a Constitution. I don't see what "system of checks and balances" we lack. What does Britain have that we don't?

I can think of many things that Britain has and that Israel doesn't, and of just as many things that Israel has but Britain doesn't. And that's the whole point--Israel is not Britain. There is no good reason to emulate Britain. This is the question of what works better.

The tricks with which Sharon pushes through the Knesset the legislation he finds necessery can be just as effectively applied to any other democratic system. He skillfully maneuvers between our two dozen parties, that's true- but that is still playing by the rules.

Well, no argument here. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The system in place allows for such manipulation. And that gives one man--the PM--the power to circumvent almost anything and anyone to push through HIS agenda and plans. With all the fiction out there about the U.S. President being able to do whatever he wants, no U.S. President could pull through something like this without a national vote. He can't even take the country to war without a straigh-forward vote by the Congress. And that is not the coalition-based vote after some manipulation to rearrange political alliances.

And frankly, the referendum idea is not very smart. The whole process will again boil down to who is a better salesman- Sharon or the settlers. I don't see the point of that.
The point is to get a clear mandate for this action. It is a major decision affecting the whole country--not a routine matter like installing a traffic light or deciding whether there should be 27 or 30 students in each high-school class. Such major decisions do require a national concensus, and a national vote is the way to get it.

[Ophra]

PM's Statement in Tel Aviv

Good Evening to you all,

Over the past few days, a group of Knesset Members from our party have threatened that they will not support the State Budget if we do not surrender to their demands and hold a national referendum. Failing to pass the budget means the downfall of the Likud Government and early elections.

I view this threat gravely. Allow me to point out that there are threats to and pressure on ministers and members of the party. These pressures emanate from within the Likud, as well as by parties outside the Likud, such as: “Kach” and “Yesha”. Threats are very serious. I view this as a very serious matter, and I intend to deal with this problem very seriously. Surrendering to threats is no less serious, in my opinion. I have seen cases like this. I do not mean a few cases. I have met with people who came and asked me what to do when faced with incessant threats to their person and to their families. I answered that I view threats as a very serious matter, but in my opinion, surrendering to these threats is no less serious. That was my answer to that person who asked me. I must admit that he still fears the threats.

My position on a national referendum is clear – I completely oppose this idea. I also tell you, there will not be a national referendum. The idea of holding a national referendum is an attempt to delay the implementation of the Disengagement Plan. I wish to make myself clear: whoever supports the national referendum is against evacuating Gaza. He is against the disengagement. Due to the broad support of the public for the Disengagement Plan, a number of those who oppose disengagement are hiding their objection by supporting a national referendum. The expression “national referendum” is another way of saying “does not want disengagement”. Minister Yisrael Katz explained this in one of the recent faction meetings when he said that he supports a national referendum because he opposes disengagement, and if he did support it [disengagment], he would oppose a national referendum, and I think he stated very clearly what is actually hiding behind the idea of a national referendum. The inciters use threats of civil war in order to influence the public who wants disengagement but prefers quiet. A national referendum will bring about an increase in incitement and hatred because of the struggle, which will continue for many months. This is what will happen.

The Disengagement Plan strengthened Israel, and already today, even before its implementation, has ushered in unprecedented political prosperity. We have received many considerations from President Bush for the plan – like maintaining the large settlement blocs, rejecting the claim for the return of refugees and political assurances protecting us from plans which are dangerous to Israel. In addition, two days ago in Sharm el-Sheikh, we saw the Arab world accept Israel’s position that there will be no political progress before a cessation of terror and incitement. Israel’s political position was achieved solely through the Disengagement Plan. Rejecting the plan will cause us to lose all the strategic advantages we have gained.

A national referendum is an attempt to stop Israel’s progress. I will not agree to this. Israel cannot waste time and money in vain. We are speaking of a delay of many months, which will, in the end, bring us to the exact same outcome – evacuating Gaza.

However, the price is high, very high. I hear the cries implying that a national referendum can prevent a rift and create national unity. I believe that a national referendum will bring about the opposite result. Already today, we see the harsh incitement and threats against officers in the IDF, members of the security system, members of Knesset and ministers. This week, we saw the ugly attack against Minister Limor Livnat – does anyone think that a national referendum would change the behavior of these people? It will not. The friction and conflict which will be created by an informational campaign for and against disengagement – that is what will bring us to bloodshed, G-d forbid.

Gentlemen, it is impossible to achieve national unity through threats, intimidation and incitement. It can only be achieved through full respect of the law and of Government and Knesset decisions. My entire life, I have never agreed to surrender to threats, and I never accepted them. And I have no intention of starting now.

Thank you.

[KettleWhistle]

PM's Statement in Tel Aviv


Do you believe anyone here doesn't know Sharon's position on these issues? I understand if that's what you believe, but otherwise, what's the point of posting this here?

My position on a national referendum is clear – I completely oppose this idea. I also tell you, there will not be a national referendum. The idea of holding a national referendum is an attempt to delay the implementation of the Disengagement Plan.

No, it is not an attempt to delay anything. Do you really believe that the last year and a half wasn't enough to have a referendum? Or do you think the next two month is not enough, or will delay it in any way?

And just so that you know, I support the idea of a Gaza pullout. As a matter of fact, I believe it should be cut off completely, with no person coming in or out. If Arab want to go elsewhere, or to the West Bank, they can go around via Egypt and Jordan.

But I do not embrace a government plan that's pushed by one man's grasp on power and political manipulations, thus circumventing the democratic process. Let the people vote on it. Those who are against disengagement can have their say, as can those who are for it. If the polls are right, the referendum not only would give Sharon the public mandate for this action, and hence more political weight, but will also show the opponents that this is indeed what the general population wants.

But in either case, the proposal for refferendum on pull-out is not what the thread is about. It is about the way the Israeli government functions. So ok, today you support their action, and you don't care for democracy to work as long as you get what you want. But what about tomorrow? What if in the future a PM will want to pull through something you oppose, and something that will hurt you and yours? Will you just shut up because the PM says you must? And feel free to answer in your own words, rather than with someone else's essay.

[Womble]

The point here is for the government to be open. If the government merely serves the interests of the people, it is a tyranny. Democracy is not that. Rather it is a system where, at least in theory, the government is that of the people and for the people.
Not exactly. Unless you are a purist rooting for a 100% direct democracy, it should be obvious that "government of the people" is but a catchy slogan. A direct democracy inevitably results in the rule of the incompetent. What all democratic states today have is a representative democracy, which is in essence a compromise between direct democracy and technocracy (as in the rule of the professionals). We, as a people, choose a team of professionals (or people who claim to be ones) to manage the state. This way, the government is accountable to the people- if the leaders proved inadequate, they will pay the price of their failure when the election day comes. But that, in my opinion, is as far as people's power should extend. How, pray tell, do you expect a politician to implement decisions that are necessery, but unpopular, if he is required to get a nationwide approval for every step he takes? We have elected a government- let's let them work.


California's recall of the governor and election of Arnold Schwartzenegger was a good example of that. Do you believe that action placed the government at the mercy of the electorate's whims and fancies? I don't think so. You can love or hate our current governor, but you'd have to agree that this brough in a sense of responsibility and a clear message to the elected officials that they will be held accountable for what they do.
...along with the message that anyone taking unpopular steps can be taken down in the middle of his term, before the results, rather than the process, can be evaluated. And the message that showmanship and the ability to sell your agenda to the public is more important than the said results. Unless the former governor was involved in some kind of crime incompatible with public service, of course. But I know too little about American inside politics to pass judgement on that situation.


I can think of many things that Britain has and that Israel doesn't, and of just as many things that Israel has but Britain doesn't. And that's the whole point--Israel is not Britain. There is no good reason to emulate Britain. This is the question of what works better.
I only mentioned Britain because their political system served as a model for the Israeli one, and only to illustrate that Israel's system of checks and balances is no worse than any other, except for being a bit more strained by the extremely multi-cultural nature of our society and politics.


Well, no argument here. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The system in place allows for such manipulation. And that gives one man--the PM--the power to circumvent almost anything and anyone to push through HIS agenda and plans. With all the fiction out there about the U.S. President being able to do whatever he wants, no U.S. President could pull through something like this without a national vote.
Excuse me, but just how many national votes were there in the history of the US?


He can't even take the country to war without a straigh-forward vote by the Congress.
And Sharon required the Knesset approval. Same thing, is it not?


And that is not the coalition-based vote after some manipulation to rearrange political alliances.
Well, of course the two party system does not allow one to build a coalition of bits and pieces. However, doesn't the party with a bigger number of sits in the Congress have the same power to pass through any legislation they wish?


The point is to get a clear mandate for this action. It is a major decision affecting the whole country--not a routine matter like installing a traffic light or deciding whether there should be 27 or 30 students in each high-school class. Such major decisions do require a national concensus, and a national vote is the way to get it.
Israeli governments of the past had taken many decisions that were a matter of life and death for the nation. A referendum was never required for that. Democratic elections constitute a sufficient mandate for the government to pursue any policy they wish as long as it is not contrary to the Constitution/Basic laws- or otherwise there is no point whatsoever in having elections. And no, I am not saying that because I am in a complete agreement with Sharon's government. I am in doubts about the disengagement plan. But even during the messy rule of Barak and the Orwellian times of the prime minister Shimon Peres I did not demand a referendum on the pullout from Lebanon or the talks with Arafat. I opposed their policy- but I would not demand them to step down just because I didn't like what they did.

[KettleWhistle]

How, pray tell, do you expect a politician to implement decisions that are necessery, but unpopular, if he is required to get a nationwide approval for every step he takes? We have elected a government- let's let them work.

There are different types of decisions. I'm not saying that routine and ordinary issues should be decided by a national vote. But when we are talking about extraordinary circumstances and major decisions of national scale, then I do believe a national vote should take place.

...along with the message that anyone taking unpopular steps can be taken down in the middle of his term, before the results, rather than the process, can be evaluated. And the message that showmanship and the ability to sell your agenda to the public is more important than the said results. Unless the former governor was involved in some kind of crime incompatible with public service, of course. But I know too little about American inside politics to pass judgement on that situation.


It was not a simple matter of unpopular decisions. The former governor was involved in much corruption, and otherwise has proven himself to be incompetent. Showmanship was not the reason for his recall, but the financial crisis, reluctance and outright refusal to deal with it and with other problems, ignoring the popular discontent with those practices, and the complete lack of accountability.

Excuse me, but just how many national votes were there in the history of the US?
The U.S. never had to deal with desicions of this scale, and most likely never will. But Canada has dealt with a similar issue, that of Quebec's secession, and I believe it was put up for a national vote.

And Sharon required the Knesset approval. Same thing, is it not?

No, it only seems that way on the surface.

Well, of course the two party system does not allow one to build a coalition of bits and pieces. However, doesn't the party with a bigger number of sits in the Congress have the same power to pass through any legislation they wish?
Actually, no. The process is much more complex than that. Even if a law passes in the Congress, it can be levied by the President, and has to be approved by the Senate. And even then its constitutionality can be contested in court.

Israeli governments of the past had taken many decisions that were a matter of life and death for the nation. A referendum was never required for that. Democratic elections constitute a sufficient mandate for the government to pursue any policy they wish as long as it is not contrary to the Constitution/Basic laws- or otherwise there is no point whatsoever in having elections.

Well, the past is the past, but the times change. I understand that what is done is in line with the current law. But I do think that the way the Israeli system works, the PM, and some other government officials have too much power. I also don't agree with your statement about the government officials having a mandate to pursue any policy they wish. They are elected on a specific platform, and the adherence to that platform is expected, and should be demanded. When government officials can do whatever they please you get corruption and a form of tyranny against which a democracy is supposed to protect the society.

But even during the messy rule of Barak and the Orwellian times of the prime minister Shimon Peres I did not demand a referendum on the pullout from Lebanon or the talks with Arafat.
Why not? If these were such critical decisions, why wouldn't you demand that people's voices are heard? As I said before, these are not some simple or routine issues. I would gladly let appropriate officials decide on how many city busses should travel certain routes within the city or the size of the subsidies our farmers will get, although I generally oppose farming subsidies. But if there was a proposition to say, split California in half, even if it both parts were still to be within the Union, there definitely would be a public vote on it. Something like this just wouldn't be allowed to occur without one.

[Womble]

There are different types of decisions. I'm not saying that routine and ordinary issues should be decided by a national vote. But when we are talking about extraordinary circumstances and major decisions of national scale, then I do believe a national vote should take place.
We live in a country where there's a dozen of extraordinary circumstances every day before breakfast. Was prisoner exchange with the Hizbullah or the recent Palestinian prisoner release not extraordinary? Was the security fence building not extraordinary? Is the huge economic reform Netahyahu is proposing not extraordinary? What isn't extraordinary in this neighborhood?


The U.S. never had to deal with desicions of this scale, and most likely never will. But Canada has dealt with a similar issue, that of Quebec's secession, and I believe it was put up for a national vote.
I seem to recall that it was a referendum of the Quebec residents rather than a nationwide one. But I may be wrong.


Actually, no. The process is much more complex than that. Even if a law passes in the Congress, it can be levied by the President, and has to be approved by the Senate. And even then its constitutionality can be contested in court.
Well, as far as I know, same here minus the Senate, which we do not have. And I don't believe we need another gang of bureaucrats to feed.


Well, the past is the past, but the times change. I understand that what is done is in line with the current law. But I do think that the way the Israeli system works, the PM, and some other government officials have too much power.


I also don't agree with your statement about the government officials having a mandate to pursue any policy they wish. They are elected on a specific platform, and the adherence to that platform is expected, and should be demanded. When government officials can do whatever they please you get corruption and a form of tyranny against which a democracy is supposed to protect the society.
Quoting a certain movie character, there is a difference between standing by your principles and hiding behind them. If the elected prime minister, after being briefed on things he may not have known being the head of an opposition, decides that his previous platform was inadequate, I see no reason why he should be prevented from acting as the circumstances dictate. This does not mean the government can do whatever they please, only whatever they are constitutionally allowed- and what they are ready to account for when the election time comes.


Why not? If these were such critical decisions, why wouldn't you demand that people's voices are heard?
Heard- yes. Demonstrations, public polls, even civil disobedience is fine in my book as long as it isn't violent. That people's voices dictate policy? Sorry, but no way. I am well aware of my limits. I have never studied economy or sociology deep enough to consider myself an expert in matters of state management. I realise that there are things Ariel Sharon may see that I, from my place, cannot. And so I prefer to let the government work, and judge them by the results in the end of term. Just like I do not give advices to the technician who fixes my computer until he claims to have finished the repair- because I myself know not how to fix a computer. Now, if my computer isn't working right after the repair, I can then hold the technician accountable, demand my money back and go to another shop.

[KettleWhistle]

We live in a country where there's a dozen of extraordinary circumstances every day before breakfast. Was prisoner exchange with the Hizbullah or the recent Palestinian prisoner release not extraordinary? Was the security fence building not extraordinary? Is the huge economic reform Netahyahu is proposing not extraordinary? What isn't extraordinary in this neighborhood?

That's not extraordinary. That's routine.
I seem to recall that it was a referendum of the Quebec residents rather than a nationwide one. But I may be wrong.
I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. The issue wasn't decided by politicians behind closed doors or by political maneuvering. They didn't have their elected leader announce one day that Quebec will "disengage" because it's good for economy. And sorry to all the Quebe-qwa who live elsewhere--they'll be forced to come home.

Well, as far as I know, same here minus the Senate, which we do not have. And I don't believe we need another gang of bureaucrats to feed.
I'm glad that you mentioned bureaucrats. I think that you'd agree they need to be control so that they don't screw the rest of the people over. I tend to think that this is one of most important functions of our Senate.
Heard- yes. Demonstrations, public polls, even civil disobedience is fine in my book as long as it isn't violent. That people's voices dictate policy? Sorry, but no way. I am well aware of my limits. I have never studied economy or sociology deep enough to consider myself an expert in matters of state management. I realise that there are things Ariel Sharon may see that I, from my place, cannot. And so I prefer to let the government work, and judge them by the results in the end of term. Just like I do not give advices to the technician who fixes my computer until he claims to have finished the repair- because I myself know not how to fix a computer. Now, if my computer isn't working right after the repair, I can then hold the technician accountable, demand my money back and go to another shop.
This is not the matter of policy though. I am talking about one man dragging the country to where HE wants it to be regardless of what the population thinks about it. Bottom line, it is a question of how much you trust the government. I am no car mechanic, although I do know about cars, but when I take my car to a repair shop, the mechanic has to get my approval for whatever repairs he'd like to do. And I wouldn't have it any other way, not because I think that I know my car through and through--I don't--but because these people have to be controlled, or otherwise they'll screw you over.

[Womble]

That's not extraordinary. That's routine.
But it WOULD be extraordinary in any other country. As I've said, in this neighborhood extraordinary IS our routine, to better or worse.


I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. The issue wasn't decided by politicians behind closed doors or by political maneuvering. They didn't have their elected leader announce one day that Quebec will "disengage" because it's good for economy. And sorry to all the Quebe-qwa who live elsewhere--they'll be forced to come home.
But that hardly was a matter of the nation's life and death, now was it? It was purely a matter of expressing people's will of whether or not they want to stay together. The Israeli disengagement plan is far more complicated from this viewpoint, not least because it would decide the fate of a third party- the PLO Arabs-who doesn't get a vote. If you want it to be purely about democracy, there's no way other than letting them vote in it too, just like the left wing loons often suggest.


I'm glad that you mentioned bureaucrats. I think that you'd agree they need to be control so that they don't screw the rest of the people over. I tend to think that this is one of most important functions of our Senate.
Control bureaucrats with more bureaucrats? What's the point of that?


This is not the matter of policy though. I am talking about one man dragging the country to where HE wants it to be regardless of what the population thinks about it. Bottom line, it is a question of how much you trust the government. I am no car mechanic, although I do know about cars, but when I take my car to a repair shop, the mechanic has to get my approval for whatever repairs he'd like to do. And I wouldn't have it any other way, not because I think that I know my car through and through--I don't--but because these people have to be controlled, or otherwise they'll screw you over.
How much I trust the government? Not much, that's for sure. You see, I was a "Perestroika child" in Russia, and like many people from my generation, I grew up with a motto "trust no one". I have zero trust in the government- but I have just as little trust in the popular opinion. A million lemmings are just as likely to be wrong as the herd leader is.

[KettleWhistle]

But it WOULD be extraordinary in any other country. As I've said, in this neighborhood extraordinary IS our routine, to better or worse.

So you agree, it's not something extraordinary, then. Likewise, I'm sure plenty of things that are common to California, or to U.S., would be extraordinary to you. For example, I doubt you get 300+ cars pile ups on highways whenever its gets foggy. In central California it is typical. In L.A. area we get several deaths every year from floods during the rain season. Sure, we don't have suicide bombers, but a couple kids get themselves drowned every year in the L.A. river.

But that hardly was a matter of the nation's life and death, now was it? It was purely a matter of expressing people's will of whether or not they want to stay together. The Israeli disengagement plan is far more complicated from this viewpoint, not least because it would decide the fate of a third party- the PLO Arabs-who doesn't get a vote. If you want it to be purely about democracy, there's no way other than letting them vote in it too, just like the left wing loons often suggest.


I don't think Gaza is a matter of life and death either. It is more like a fork in a road, and it is a question of whether it will be one person--Sharon--making the call on which way to go, or everyone who's involved.

Control bureaucrats with more bureaucrats? What's the point of that?
Not necessarily more. You could split the Knesset in half. The point would be to have more scrutiny in implementing new legislature, and the division of power, which will make these bereaucrats less powerful. There is simply less room for corruption if the work of one will have to be confirmed by the other, and the general direction of what both do is determined by the needs and wishes of their electorate.

How much I trust the government? Not much, that's for sure. You see, I was a "Perestroika child" in Russia, and like many people from my generation, I grew up with a motto "trust no one". I have zero trust in the government- but I have just as little trust in the popular opinion. A million lemmings are just as likely to be wrong as the herd leader is.

I am a "Perestroika child" too, but I think that public vote should determine the general direction of where the country, state, county, or even city is heading. In the last elections, I not only voted for the President of the U.S., but also on a number of seemingly small issues: whether the city of Los Angeles should borrow $6 million to clean up the beaches, whether the Los Angeles county should have an extra tax in order to increase the number of policemen we have, whether the state of California should borrow 6 billion dollars in order to establish a stem-cell research facility, how the local taxes should be distributed, and how California should budget the state's educational spendings. Sure, the particulars of these desisions will be left to the experts that our elected representatives will hire, but at the same time, our politicians will have to obide by our choice for the general direction. And that's what having a democracy means to me. To have one or two bureaucrats decide these issues simply wouldn't be democratic.

[Womble]

So you agree, it's not something extraordinary, then. Likewise, I'm sure plenty of things that are common to California, or to U.S., would be extraordinary to you. For example, I doubt you get 300+ cars pile ups on highways whenever its gets foggy. In central California it is typical. In L.A. area we get several deaths every year from floods during the rain season. Sure, we don't have suicide bombers, but a couple kids get themselves drowned every year in the L.A. river.
You are talking about things on an entirely different scale. What I am saying is that the government of Israel literally decides the fate of the nation on an almost daily basis. The 300 cars piled up on a highway would be impressive for a small country like ours, but hardly comparable to an unprecedented exchange of three dead bodies for hundreds of enemy combatants, conducting a large scale army operation like the "Defensive shield", building a security barrier with the cost comparable to the state's defense budget or uprooting several well established towns.


I don't think Gaza is a matter of life and death either. It is more like a fork in a road, and it is a question of whether it will be one person--Sharon--making the call on which way to go, or everyone who's involved.
Not really. It is a question of whether the final decision will be taken on the basis of popular perception or on the basis of professional analysis.
Besides, if it isn't a matter of life and death- why, pray tell, make such a big deal of it in the first place?


Not necessarily more. You could split the Knesset in half. The point would be to have more scrutiny in implementing new legislature, and the division of power, which will make these bereaucrats less powerful. There is simply less room for corruption if the work of one will have to be confirmed by the other, and the general direction of what both do is determined by the needs and wishes of their electorate.
I must say I do like the idea, and it is perfectly compatible with our political system (after all, if we already chose to pattern it after the British model, they do have a House of Lords and a House of Commons, don't they?)
However, it would still be done through representatives rather than by a direct expression of the people's opinion.


I am a "Perestroika child" too, but I think that public vote should determine the general direction of where the country, state, county, or even city is heading. In the last elections, I not only voted for the President of the U.S., but also on a number of seemingly small issues: whether the city of Los Angeles should borrow $6 million to clean up the beaches, whether the Los Angeles county should have an extra tax in order to increase the number of policemen we have, whether the state of California should borrow 6 billion dollars in order to establish a stem-cell research facility, how the local taxes should be distributed, and how California should budget the state's educational spendings. Sure, the particulars of these desisions will be left to the experts that our elected representatives will hire, but at the same time, our politicians will have to obide by our choice for the general direction. And that's what having a democracy means to me. To have one or two bureaucrats decide these issues simply wouldn't be democratic.
It seems to me that we arrive to different conclusions from the same place. I also believe that public vote should determine the general direction, and I also take into account many small issues when I vote. However, once my candidate is elected, I prefer judging him by the results at the end of his term rather than kick him out the moment he does something that is not to my liking. (Unless of course this candidate commits a crime incompatible with public service. If Sharon was convicted of corruption, I'd be the first to demand that he stands down). If his results are unsatisfactory, he isn't getting my vote anymore. Ever. Even as a lesser of two evils. Is that not democratic?

[KettleWhistle]

I must say I do like the idea, and it is perfectly compatible with our political system (after all, if we already chose to pattern it after the British model, they do have a House of Lords and a House of Commons, don't they?)
However, it would still be done through representatives rather than by a direct expression of the people's opinion.

You can call it houses or chambers of a parliament, or Senate and the House of Represenative (that's the official name of the U.S. Congress), but the idea still the same--to make bureaucrats less powerful and to subject them to more control. This is one of the ideas that formed the U.S. government structure, and it's a powerful one. Not to say that our system is perfect, but I do believe that the basic structure we have is better than that of the parliamentary system, as it provides for more stability and better accountability.

It seems to me that we arrive to different conclusions from the same place. I also believe that public vote should determine the general direction, and I also take into account many small issues when I vote. However, once my candidate is elected, I prefer judging him by the results at the end of his term rather than kick him out the moment he does something that is not to my liking. (Unless of course this candidate commits a crime incompatible with public service. If Sharon was convicted of corruption, I'd be the first to demand that he stands down). If his results are unsatisfactory, he isn't getting my vote anymore. Ever. Even as a lesser of two evils. Is that not democratic?
Democratic? Yes. But to what degree? I think that if the electorate is kept out of the loop on such decisions, it is dangerously close to authocracy. My argument in this case is not so much to what Sharon does or does not do, but the failure and fragility of the general structure of the government. The question of the referendum really raises another, and really more important question: does the opinion of the citizenry count?

In my country I know that it does. I could argue that there is no need for a popular vote on whether the city of Los Angeles should borrow money for beach clean-up. It is easy to make a case that this could be left to experts and professionals. And that's just a relatively simple issue. There is no question that far more complex issues would be voted upon as well.

[Womble]

Democratic? Yes. But to what degree? I think that if the electorate is kept out of the loop on such decisions, it is dangerously close to authocracy. My argument in this case is not so much to what Sharon does or does not do, but the failure and fragility of the general structure of the government. The question of the referendum really raises another, and really more important question: does the opinion of the citizenry count?
In my country I know that it does. I could argue that there is no need for a popular vote on whether the city of Los Angeles should borrow money for beach clean-up. It is easy to make a case that this could be left to experts and professionals. And that's just a relatively simple issue. There is no question that far more complex issues would be voted upon as well.
You see, I am not a purist. Democracy is the most effective of the existing government systems, but I am afraid of it becoming a dogma. I do not think that today's Western governments, including that of Israel, are in danger of authocracy. The opposite it true: modern democratic governments are too powerless to be effective, and it is the fault of the people, not of the politicians. Citizens born and raised under a democracy are becoming increasingly Utopia minded, and it is virtually impossible to win an average man's vote without making promises that cannot be kept. Too many people forget that rights are maintained by obligations and that politics are the art of the possible. Too many people express the view that the government owes them everything while they owe the state nothing. I am afraid of that, because it is the way into mob tyranny, and no authocracy scares me as much as the possibility of the mob rule.