In defense of Israel's electoral system

With 7 days to go to the Israeli election, I am compelled to comment about it as it is ripe on my mind. I will begin by defending the system itself.

There are many critics who say that the pure PR system in Israel contributes to an unstable coalition everytime. In fact, there have been predictable timelines of roughly 3 1/2 years from 1999 to the present (legislative elections. The 2001 election was direct prime ministerial). If it was so unstable, there would be more frequent elections. By comparison, America has a fixed election every 2 years and there you have majority parties.

Israeli elections tend to produce convincing majorities for blocs, either the left or the right, with each bloc comprising of 3-4 parties. They tend to agree on foreign policy but differ generally on economic issues. Thus, Israel's foreign policy has tended to be uniform with the coalition tending to side with the opinion of the Prime Minister on matters of foreign policy. Not always but generally this is the case.

Where the parties have differed is over fiscal policy. For example, the Sephardi party Shas tends to agree with Netanyahu's Likud on foreign policy but is its polar opposite when it comes to the social safety net. Shas favors more while Likud favors less.

What forces the parties to eventually compromise over a budget is the threat of an election. Governments tend to prefer staying in power rather than facing the electorate. But what if Shas for example stands firm and refuses to budge? That is why coalitions tend to be built with as many parties as possible with a stable coalition tending to be in the ballpark of 70-80 members of Knesset (out of 120).

Some might argue that this severely limits the governing party's ability to enact fiscal policy. This is true to an extent but such parties have to be smart enough to conclude that if they fail to break 25% of the vote, they will not be able to have a monopoly over fiscal policy and would have to concede to hearing other voices over the budget.

In theory, a party can win over 50% of the vote and rule unchallenged. But the people prefer to elect coalitions. The highest vote share a party in Israel ever got was 40%. The Likud Party in 1988.

The system was created to encourage as many voices from within society to run for election. Often the electoral process creates awareness of various issues like pensions, banks, immigration hardships, etc etc. This is a welcome thing.

It's true that since 1996, the top parties' share of the overall seats has been quite reduced at the expense of smaller parties, contributing to a "pizza parliament." Just compare these numbers:

Top two parties seats in parliament

1992 - 76
1996 - 66
1999 - 45
2003 - 57*
2006 - 48

* the 1996 and 1999 elections had an additional direct vote for Prime Minister in addition to voting for the party of your choice. This more than likely contributed to the top two parties having a smaller share of the overall seats. In 2003, the system was restored causing a brief uptick (to 57) but even this was sad. Until 1996, the top two parties could muster together a majority. The 1980s were characterized by national unity governments between Labor and Likud (who together had around 90-95 seats combined).

Another contributor is the decline of the Labor party. Once a juggernaut that contended for the role of governing party, it is now fighting for 3rd place with Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beitenu. If Kadima ever collapses, Likud will remain as the sole party capable of building coalition governments.

According to latest polls, Kadima and Likud the two leading parties will not muster a majority if they combine forces. The most optimistic projection is 29+24 = 53 seats. This means it will be a frazzled parliament again with four significantly large parties and then four small parties. The right bloc is slated to win 65 seats so Netanyahu can have a right-wing government if he so chooses.

Ultimately, the people have the power to elect more stable options for coalition-building but they do not. They opt for the smaller parties. Often in each election cycle, a new party jumps out of nowhere. In 2006, it was the Pensioners Party who went from zero to 7 seats. Such phenomena just add to the instability.However, it doesn't mean the system is broken. The system gives the people a choice and this is what they choose. However, I would argue that this is no liability at all.

Israel's electoral system has many benefits: the ability to vote either for a ruling party or a party that will aid the ruling party in order to shape the policy you want. Often with a big tent party like the Republicans, you get watered-down policy designed at attracting new voters. With this system, Likud can be center-right and its coalition partners can be further to the right.

The problem of frazzled coalitions can be solved if the top parties will strengthen. This can happen in one or two election cycles. It all depends on how the public mood goes.