So much for the so-called "only-democracry-in-the-mideast" ....
Failing approach to democracy
By Muli Peleg
The disturbing pubic opinion poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute on the weakening of Israeli democracy passed in silence. The silence confirms the findings: A large number of Israelis have contempt for democracy and regard it as an irrelevant obstacle to reality here. The rest are apathetic or have lost hope for a dialogue with the first group.
Beyond the brutalization of Israeli society as a result of ongoing occupation and unforgivable widening income gaps, there is a deeper failure in the approach to democracy. One of the significant and stubborn debates in the doctrine of democracy is over its character and dimension. Is democracy a means or a goal, is it limited to politics or is it a way of life? The importance of that distinction goes far beyond the academic argument and affects the applied dimensions of government and how public life is navigated.
Polar positions and differing interpretations of democracy's role create a variety of attitudes, most frequently contradictory, to ideological pluralism and coexistence. The two relevant concepts are the narrow or liberal approach and the broader, participatory approach to democracy.
The first emphasizes individual liberties, a clear separation between public and private, government efficacy and rule of law, and ideological pluralism. The second emphasizes participation and social activism, equality, and broadening the public arena beyond politics. Liberal democracy supporters regard it as an instrument to guarantee natural rights - life, liberty, property, and all that is derived thereof. In other words, democracy is a condition or framework for the fulfillment of other goals. Therefore, it must be directed to that end - no more, no less. Because it is functional, democracy must operate properly, be efficient, and be executable. Under certain circumstances, if not supervised, democracy could oppose other ideals, such as liberty or justice.
Supporters of broad, participatory democracy argue that democracy is a goal unto itself. It's a way of living based on a comprehensive view of its values that does not contradict other ideals, but allows them to exist. Natural rights can only be achieved in a democratic environment. That's why the borders of democracy, its principles, and methods of operation must be broadened into all areas of life.
The Israeli model is authoritarian-hierarchal and narrow. The poverty of Israeli democracy goes back to the days of the pre-state yishuv, when the commitment to democracy was focused on processes and procedures. That's because there was no sovereign Israeli authority during that period, and the only way to protect the political entity was by preserving the coexistence of all political movements and strains within the society. Under those circumstances, the essences of democracy - tolerance, broad participation and equal opportunity to influence the decisions of the public - were forgotten and neglected. Israeli democracy was largely institutionalized as a form of government procedures and nothing more.
In addition, Israeli society is trapped in the shackles of collectivism. From the dawn of its establishment, Israeli society has been staked on collective parameters - the nation, the people, religion, nationality, the ethnic group, the party. The trauma of the Diaspora and the Holocaust, which resulted in the sense of common destiny, the socialist heritage that takes pride in the social unit and dismisses the individual, and the psychological need to come together against ongoing external threats, were all combined to become responsible for the distortion of the collective. These circumstances resulted in the suffocation of individualism and the freedoms of the individual, in which normative democracies take pride. The culture of debate, exchange of views, mutual fertilization - instruments with which a full democracy is equipped - do not exist, and therefore, the possibility of escaping the anti-democratic trap of Israeli society remains far off. In such a reality, the IDI's important public opinion poll will remain nothing more than a curiosity.
Dr. Peleg teaches political science at Tel Aviv University
haaretz.com |
