Never was Israel further from democracy as it is in the
coming elections. In the polls, 60% of the voters wanted another candidate
to run against the two generals, but the political system, blatantly
ignoring anything known about the will of the majority, forced a choice
between only two candidates, neither of whom nears the majority of 50+%,
required by law.
Less than a month ago, we were still at the peak of the
war hysteria which Barak and his close military circle have generated.
"I have not yet managed to understand from Arafat that he is willing
to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel" - he declared.
The spirit of 1948 was thick in the air: war with the occupied
Palestinians, with the Israeli Palestinians, and "if necessary"
- with Syria and the whole Arab world. For the first time in his cadence,
Barak looked glowing and focused, like someone who has finally reached
self realization.
This dangerous and power driven general is now being
packaged as our savior the knight of peace. And those who don't want him,
are stuck with Sharon.
My grandfather in the Pale of Settlement complained
against the restrictions of the free movement of Jews in the Russian
Empire, while in our generation Anatoli Sharansky became a symbol of
struggle for human rights. In our own country, the Gentiles are fenced
into reservations and concentration camps that the Pale pales in
comparison with. A Palestinian cannot go to the next village without the
Jewish ausweis, he is forever checked by our Checkists. He can only dream
of the sea, washing the shores of his ancestral home ? we do not let
Palestinians to pollute the Jewish purity of our beaches.
We reached this state through a long process of neglect of
the basic values of democracy. Formally, the elections system of Israel is
similar to that in France. There too, the law states that the (presidency)
elections can be decided on the first round only with absolute majority,
namely, if there is a candidate who got more than 50% of the votes. But
there, there are always more than two candidates. The underlying
assumption is that the elections are the time at which the society
determines its way for the next few years. If no candidate has gained in
advance the support of the majority, there should be a second process of
discussion and convincing, towards the second round.
But in Israel, there is already a tradition of forcing a
decision in the first round. In the last, 1999, elections massive pressure
was exercised on the other candidates to withdraw before the first round.
This time this was already guaranteed at the start, with a hasty decision process, in
a military style.
Still, even under such circumstances, it would not have
been possible in France to force the voters to elect in a single round one
of two hated candidates. Assume that one candidate got 35% of the votes,
and the other - 40%. The other 25%, who object to both, casted a blank
ballot. The result is that no candidate got the required 50%, and a
solution should be found in another round.
But in Israel, at the eve of the 1996 elections, when
Peres feared the blank ballots which awaited him following his 'grapes of
wrath' attack on Lebanon, he enforced a regulation stating that the blank
ballots are "disqualified", namely, they are not counted in the
total of which 50% is required. Thus, with just one arbitrary law, the
most essential principle underlying this system of elections -that an
absolute majority is needed to decide in the first round - has simply
vanished.
In practice, it is because of this regulation that Peres
lost the elections. 5% of the voters, from the left, voted nevertheless
blank. Had their votes been counted, Netanyahu too would not have passed
in the first round. Nevertheless, the regulation stayed, like so many
illegal regulations, so easy to pass in Israel. In the present situation,
those who do not accept the predetermined choice generated by the power
system face a clear verdict: "disqualified" - out of the
political game!
Why should Barak worry about the smashing lack of support
he encounters? The winner will be the one who can get the peace-voters,
and on this front, Barak believes he is omnipotent.
It is possible to pull out of one's hat a new peace
process. As in the case of Syria, Barak can even instruct his aids to
spread rumors about dismantling settlements. As long as it's all only in
the media, and not in any written document - why not? In any case, all
that is being discussed is yet another "framework" agreement for
three to six years. Possibly, Arafat can be forced again to sign, shake
hands, and be photographed in peace positions, as he was trained to do so
well during the years of Oslo. To ease his way, the same lies about 67
borders, or division of Jerusalem, can be recycled once again.
It is a bit hard to believe that it will be possible,
indeed, to sell the same lies again after Syria, after Camp David, after
the attack on the Israeli Arabs, after Barak's "There is no partner
for peace" declarations, and while in the territories, the Israeli
army continues to starve, torture and assassinate the Palestinians.
But Barak knows that he is very well covered. At his
service there is a government that has long given up its right to be
informed of his plans, and three loyal peace parties - One Israel, Meretz
and Hadash (CP)- which will each explain to the slice of population it is
in charge of, that this time it is really peace and we must vote Barak. He
also has obedient media that will recycle happily the praises of his new
peace offers, and a battery of intellectuals who will prove with a magic
wand that we are only imagining that the king is naked.
If Barak chooses indeed this scenario (rather than opting
directly for war, avoiding altogether the nuisance of elections), it is
possible that, as the jubilees of the elections peace fade away, we will
find ourselves again with a single ruler who consults only with the army,
and who will, perhaps, try to argue that he is not subjected to the
parliament decisions because he was crowned directly by the people. And
then it will just turn out that after all, 'there is no partner to peace
and Arafat does not respect agreements', and we will go back to 1948.
But before we complete this transition into a military
dictatorship in parliamentary disguise, it is still possible to go back to
the spirit of democracy and the law. It is necessary, first, to annul the
shameful regulation disqualifying the blank ballots, and let the voters
decide. If there is no candidate with a 50% majority, the process should
be reopened, so we can have real elections.
* Tanya Reinhart is a professor
in Tel Aviv University
