DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇱 Israel /Elections & Politics

A 'unity' government would block the reforms Israel desperately needs - opinion

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

Opinion Sources not specified Context piece
  • Israeli politicians are debating whether excluding parties from government coalitions violates democratic norms, particularly concerning Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
  • The author argues that in parliamentary democracies, the opposition is not entitled to cabinet positions, citing examples from Britain, Germany, and India.
  • The piece contends that a 'unity' government would hinder necessary reforms in Israel, suggesting that permanent access to executive power for Likud is being wrongly framed as a democratic right.

The debate over coalition-building in Israel is heating up, with some politicians arguing that excluding parties like Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud from government positions is undemocratic. This argument, often framed around unity and respect for voters, suggests that parties receiving millions of votes are entitled to cabinet seats.

boycotts are bad!

— Israeli politiciansDuring every election cycle, a few Israeli politicians wheel out the tested, tired mantra.

The author, Dan Perry, strongly refutes this notion, asserting that it has no basis in the practice of serious democracies. He points out that Netanyahu himself did not invite his principal opponents into his current government, despite their electoral support. Perry argues that the opposition's role is to govern with their preferred coalition and consign others to opposition, not to demand inclusion.

Refusing to “sit” with a particular party, refusing to hand it ministries, and refusing to restore it to power after years of failure are presented as unfair, unfriendly, and elitist.

— Israeli politiciansThe people making this argument usually wrap themselves in lofty words about unity, healing, and respect for the voters, as though parliamentary democracy were designed to guarantee everyone a seat around the cabinet table.

Perry criticizes centrist politicians who accept the premise that excluding Likud violates democratic norms. He questions whether Netanyahu felt compelled to include opponents like Yesh Atid or Benny Gantz in his government, highlighting that such a demand was never made of the opposition. He emphasizes that no democracy grants equal governing power to both the opposition and the coalition.

Millions have voted for Benjamin Netanyahu, we are told.

— Israeli politiciansThe implication is that excluding Likud from the government would somehow violate democratic norms.

The article suggests that this argument for 'no boycotts' is particularly prevalent when Likud is unable to form a government, framing cabinet participation as a civil right for the party. Perry contrasts this with practices in Britain, Germany, and India, where parties do not expect to share power simply due to their electoral success. He concludes that a 'unity' government would ultimately block reforms Israel desperately needs.

When Netanyahu assembled the current government, did he feel compelled to invite his principal opponents into the cabinet because millions had voted for them?

— Dan PerryTherefore, let me ask: When Netanyahu assembled the current government, did he feel compelled to invite his principal opponents into the cabinet because millions had voted for them?
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Jerusalem Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog