Weekly Commentary: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 10 December 2009

Media coverage of the proposed law requiring a national referendum in the
instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli
territory has for the most part ignored the potentially critical
Subparagraph 3A.

Here is a rough translation:

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), if the Knesset approved the
Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day
that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset
elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government
decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum
on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed
after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it,
unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position
that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it
would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling
coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is
a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the
previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of
cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the
previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world
pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for "acting
responsibly".

OK.

So let's assume for a moment that a newly elected Government brought to
power because it opposed the agreement the previous Government reached would
actually honor and respect its mandate and vote to cancel the deal.

What does the country gain by requiring a cabinet vote?

Let's think this through:

By definition we would have a new prime minister heading a ruling coalition
that defeated the previous coalition that supported the deal.

So which scenario would better serve Israel's interests?

That the new prime minister can tell the world that his "hands are tied" by
the outcome of the referendum and the deal is off?

Or

That the new prime minister has to raise his own hand to cancel an agreement
that, no doubt, enjoyed the backing of the United States and other important
countries?

That's a no brainer.

Here's an idea.

Instead of dropping the referendum in the instance that there are elections,
why not have citizens cast their ballots in the referendum at the same as
they vote in the Knesset elections?

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il