{Guest columnist, Dr. Paul Shrell-Fox}
We all laugh sardonically at countries whose leaders last longer than a few (8, 10, 12!) years and then even change the laws to ensure that they remain in power. Indeed, the Arab world finally realized that dictators are bad and sometimes one must overthrow them, and sometimes even violently.
In the United States, in the middle of the last century, the people and their representatives came to a conclusion: it’s better to limit the term of service of even a good president, lest “serving” becomes “reigning.” To be sure, there are certain foibles with the American presidential term limits, but by and large US democracy and policy making is well served by them.
How does this play out in Israel? I think that the latest shenanigans in the Netanyahu reign show how bad it is for our small democracy in Israel. It begins with the firing of Livni and Lapid. Political opinions aside (I voted for Bibi) the only possible result was to throw the country into a political tizzy costing way too much money and guaranteeing no significant change in the winner’s ability to govern. At the time Netanyahu was so sure of victory, the choice was obvious to him. “I will continue my reign and be prime minister for another term. It doesn’t matter who sits with me around the ruling table.”
The debacle with the Obama administration is another example of power taken too far. In Bibi’s mind, he can take on the most powerful administration in the free world because Obama has (only) another two years to go. It seems that Netanyahu’s analysis is correct, and that Obama is naive, but to attempt to take on the POTUS on his home court is a poorly construed strategy, only possible if you think you are truly omnipotent.
Should we be vocal about the existential threat Iran poses? Yes.
Should we be afraid? Yes.
Should we lobby every possible congressman and woman? Yes.
Should our PM stick his finger in Obama’s eye? Not so sure that’s a good strategy.
It’s never easy to truly grasp all the issues in an Israeli election. We are witnessing, on my opinion, the campaign that has revolved very little on the issues, but rather on the personalities. “Rak lo Bibi,” “Dai Tzipi” etc.
Is the public so ignorant and unable to grasp the issues that the only important thing is the person, not her or his ideas?
Or maybe that is the issue. Maybe it’s time to add an additional electoral reform, so that the issues can become central again, and not the person.
So how would it work in Israel, a parliamentary democracy that suffered greatly from the experiment of direct elections of the PM in the past? How can we ensure that we once again vote for ideas and not people?
Perhaps something like this: Term limits on the party heads, but not on the parties themselves.
Take the Likud for example. The populations seems to like (many) of their ideas. We also seem to be taken by their current leader, but his personality has become as much of a liability as an advantage. But we still seem to like the Likud policies.
So let’s say that the party can be elected into power with no limits, but the party head can only be party head for two and a half terms. So midway through the third term, the party must elect a new head. Then the party can be elected twice with the same person at the helm, switching again midway through the third term. The Likud can be the ruling party ad infinitum or ad absurdum, but it’s their policies, not the person that take central importance.