Weekly Commentary: National referendum - the cement that binds

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 14 October 2010

Many in the Israeli Left oppose legislation that would require holding a
national referendum to approve future Palestinian-Israeli agreements on the
grounds that such agreements couldn't pass if put to a national vote.

Read that again.

Yes.

That's right.

They don't think that the Israeli public, if provided the opportunity to
vote directly on an agreement, would support it.

They then argue, along with a small minority from the Right, that Israel is
a parliamentary democracy and that the citizens thus should only express
their positions via their elected representatives rather via plebiscites.

Now if we were back in 1948 and the country had just been founded then one
might accept this line of thinking.

But its 2010 now and the fact of the matter is that we have had a series of
major agreements negotiated by prime ministers who accepted terms that they
very clearly opposed when they ran for office. And the Knesset majorities
that endorsed these agreements relied on parties that were elected on the
basis of election platforms that contradicted these deals.

Was that democratic?

The argument that politicians who betray their mandates can be punished at
the ballot box is hardly satisfactory given the permanent nature of the
damage they have done.

There is a considerably more sophisticated - though more condescending -
argument: That the Israeli public actually knows deep down in its collective
heart that the Jewish State has to agree to "X", but that same public
doesn't
have the stomach to actively endorse "X". So citizens vote for candidates
and parties that claim to oppose "X" knowing full well that their mandate
will be defied.

But there is also a practical side to this issue that warrants
consideration.

Without the promise of a national referendum there is a very large and
significant segment of Israeli society in the dangerously frustrating
position that they are not only aware that their will, as expressed via the
elections, will be defied should an agreement be reached and that there is
nothing, for all practical purposes, that they can do within the framework
of the system to stop the betrayal.

The promise of a national referendum goes far beyond philosophical
discussions of the meaning of democracy and its practical expression.

The promise of a national referendum would, in the event that an agreement
is indeed reached, serve as the vital cement that keeps our social compact
intact.

For with all the pain, it would be one thing for an agreement - no matter
how distasteful it may be - to be signed after gaining approval in a
national referendum, and quite another if the deal went through only because
some politicians decided that they could get away with betraying their
mandate.

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