Disengagement and Democracy

An editorial in Haaretz worries that, as the Gaza retreat draws near and opposition to it increases, the idea of a referendum may be revived. 

So Haaretz draws the following lesson from the French voters’ rejection of the EU Constitution:  don’t let the Israeli public vote on disengagement:

Legislatures, governments and heads of the executive branch (presidents or prime ministers) are elected in order to bear the burden of making difficult decisions. Abandoning this responsibility and transferring it to the general public, which does not weigh the constraints and the available resources the way elected officials are supposed to do, transfers the vote from the domain of the intellect to that of emotion. . . .

As the [Gaza] evacuation draws nearer and the opposition to it increases, senior Likud officials are liable to revive this seemingly dead idea [of a referendum].  Sunday's vote in France constitutes fresh, additional proof of why Israel must not adopt this system.

You see, the public is too stupid to vote.  They’re short on intellect and long on emotion.  They don’t weigh constraints.  They don’t consider available resources. They’re not equipped to bear the burden of making difficult decisions. 

And we’re so fortunate to have fresh proof from France!  Israel must never, ever, let the people vote on a difficult decision like this.

Except they did, three times.  They elected Rabin on a platform opposing a Palestinian state; he negotiated one in secret at Oslo (that process did not turn out well). 

They elected Barak because he was a former IDF Chief of Staff and war hero who said he would fight a more effective fight against terrorists; he divided Jerusalem in secret at Camp David, made even more desperate offers at Taba, and left his country in a new war. 

They elected Sharon on his express rejection of Mitzna’s disengagement plan, and then watched him adopt it.  He presented the plan to Likkud voters, saw it rejected, and then adopted it anyway.

Best not let the emotional voters express themselves again. 

Six months ago, I spoke with a prominent Israeli political scientist who strongly opposed a referendum.  I told him I thought his published reasons seemed slight:  there was no precedent for a referendum, it would take too much time, it was too difficult to word the question to be presented to the voters (a problem apparently not encountered in public opinion polls).

These seemed like superable problems.  Given the public opinion polls, I asked, wouldn’t a vote simply provide the needed legitimacy for the plan?

In response, he told me the real reason he thought a referendum was a bad idea.

In the Letters from Readers section of the current issue of Commentary, there is a very good exchange between Hillel Halkin and his readers regarding his article about the disengagement plan.  The letters and Halkin’s response fairly present the issues -- in an intellectual rather than emotional manner.  I think the people could understand them, and should decide.

Comments

[Isaac B2]

I want everyone to vote. But some people are going to vote stupidly. How to solve the problem? Let them vote anyway -- that's democracy, and it works pretty darn well, thank you very much.

[Seth Chalmer]

Letting everybody vote on an issue is indeed democracy. It is pure democracy. Like the famous and pure Athenian democracy: everybody gather on the hillside and vote everything up or down. And as James Madison said of the Athenian democracy, "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, the Athenian democracy would still have been a mob." (I may have missed his exact wording, but that's the gist.)

It is indeed true that all the brave peacemakers of Israel came in with different and much more hawklike ideas (don't forget Begin too!). It may be that in the new perspective of the head of state, with all the classified intelligence, all the broad perspective, all the trying and failing, a Prime Minister's mind may be changed. It may be that the Prime Minister has better perspective than the citizens as to how to safeguard the state. And so, it may be that representative democracy is better than pure democracy.

In any case, Sharon will eventually be accountable to the people: by elections, as well as by Likud party conferences. But let's not get referendum-happy, and vote everything up or down; if we do, why not just become that mob on a hill and get it over with?

http://sethchalmer.blogspot.com