The Israel Democracy Institute - Publications Catalog

What is the IDI Press?

Publishing Director: Ms. Edna Granit

The Publications Series of the Israel Democracy Institute is meant to promote and enrich public discussion on various government-related issues that are at the top of the agenda for Israeli democracy. This Department publishes Institute publications, which are the products of research papers and projects carried out at the Institute by its fellows. In addition, summaries of conferences and seminars held at the Institute, such as the Army-Society Forum, the Public Council, and the Annual Economic Conference, are also published.

The Publications Department comprises sub-units, including production, marketing, and distribution.

We hope that by sharing findings and ideas generated by IDI research papers and projects with the public, the process of strengthening democracy in Israel will be reinforced.

To purchase our publications please contact IDI Press

Tel: +972-(1)800-20-2222

Fax: +972-(0)2-530-0867

Email: orders@idi.org.il

IDI Publications

Author

Starts with

Publishing Date

From

Topic

Series

Category

Author

Through

Clear

Display

1-10 Out of 118

The Elections in Israel 2006

Author:

Arian Asher, Shamir Michal

Topic:

Elections

Publishing Date:

2008

Series:

Democratic Culture

The Elections in Israel 2006 brings together leading Israeli and North American social scientists and their state-of-the-art, in-depth analysis of the 2006 Israeli national elections. The 2006 elections occurred soon after the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlers and the army from the Gaza Strip and the departure of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from active politics due to a massive stroke. Sharon had engineered the withdrawal from Gaza. The policy brought about a split in the Likud party, and Sharon led his group to coalesce with other groups (including Labor's Shimon Peres) to form a new party, Kadima. For the first time in Israeli political history, a party for the ideological center was poised to be the top vote getter. Kadima's victory ensured the accession of Ehud Olmert, who became Israel's new prime minister.
Labor, too, had fielded a new leader in the person of Amir Peretz, a former head of the country's Histadruth labor union; he attempted to focus the campaign on social and economical issues but the campaign reverted back to security and foreign affairs. Ironically, in the post-election government, Peretz was given the post of defense minister. Likud was unable to recover from the departure of Sharon and other leaders.
The 2006 elections also saw a precipitous drop in voter turnout compared to previous elections. Parties and politicians were plagued by low levels of trust on the part of the electorate and revelations of corruption were rife. The Arabs and the religious Jewish Parties each faced challenges in retaining their strength in the electorate and in the governing coalition.
This volume also illuminates developments and changes in Israeli society and politics. Many of these developments – multiculturalism, changes in social satisfaction, sinking turnout, growing mistrust of political institutions, and political reforms – characterize other Western democracies as well, and these are discussed from a comparative global perspective. The Elections in Israel-2006 will also be of particular interest to those concerned with comparative politics and elections in general.

The 2006 Israeli Democracy Index

Author:

Arian Asher, Atmor Nir, Hadar Yael

Topic:

Public Opinion

Publishing Date:

2007

Series:

The Guttman Center Publications: The Israeli Democracy Index

Category:

The Guttman Center Surveys

The Israeli Democracy Index 2006 published by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) (currently the first draft is available in English) delineates the gap between public interest in politics and the level of trust the public has in politicians and political parties. Only 22% of the public trusts political parties.

The Democracy Index is produced under the Guttman Center, under the supervision of IDI Senior Fellow Professor Asher Arian, and is presented to the President at an annual conference. This year’s Index, which was presented to the President of the State of Israel on May 10th, 2006, is entitled: Changes in Israel's Political Party System: Dealignment or Realignment?

At the conference, President Moshe Katsav emphasized the IDI's important contribution to recognizing the weaknesses in our democracy and finding and proposing ways to improve it. Other participants at the conference included IDI President Dr. Arye Carmon; Profesor Asher Arian, Senior Fellow at the IDI who presented the Index and its findings; Foreign Minister, MK Tzipi Livni (who immediately after her speach rushed off to the Knesset to vote on the national budget); President of the Supreme Court, Justice Aharon Barak; Professor Michal Shamir, Tel Aviv University; Dr. Faisal Azaiza, Head of the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa; Dr. Asher Cohen, Bar Ilan University; Mr. Raviv Drucker, political correspondent for Channel 10; and former MK Dr. Uzi Landau.

Main Findings

• The gap between interest in politics and levels of participation and the ability to influence policy: Israelis are interested in politics, speak about it, and have more knowledge about politics than in the past. 73% of those surveyed show interest in politics. 82% stay updated on a daily basis or several times a week through television, radio, and newspapers. 67% speak to their friends and family members about political matters. These figures are higher than in 35 other Western democracies. Subsequently, it seems odd that the relationship between voters and their representatives can be seen as apathetic and distant from politics and political activity. Only 27% believe that they can influence government policy, and only 17% agree that politicians keep their promises after they are elected.

• The public’s trust in politics: the level of trust Israeli citizens have in politicians has significantly decreased in the past few years. Only 17% of those surveyed agree or absolutely agree that elected politicians try to achieve what they had promised prior to being elected. 25% agree or absolutely agree that Knesset members care about what the general public thinks (21% are not sure). Only 22% of the public trust political parties, less than they trust any public institution in Israel (33% trust the Knesset, 44% trust the media, 68% trust the Supreme Court, and 79% trust the IDF).

• Political corruption: 62% of the respondents are certain that there is much political corruption in Israel, and about half of those surveyed think that in order for candidates to reach a high political position in Israel, they must be corrupt. Only 10% maintain that those running the country look out for the public’s best interest.

• Political corruption from a comparative perspective: Israel is ranked 20th out of 36 democracies (the lower the number, the lower the political corruption). This year, Transparency International’s ratings were considered, in which Israel received 6.3 out of 10 (as of October 2005). Finland and New Zealand share first place, with the least amount of political corruption, while Argentina and India are at the low end of the scale, with the highest levels of political corruption. Israel is placed between Estonia and Taiwan. It is interesting to see how Israel has gone down on the scale since 2003, when it came in 14th place, and 2004, when it was placed 17th, to the 20th place late in 2005. Only three years ago Germany shared the 14th place with Israel, yet is now placed 12th. This downward trend is worrisome for the State of Israel.

• Political involvement: Only 6% of those surveyed are members of a political party. In contrast, 51% feel closer to a specific party. In addition, 61% agree that strong leaders are more useful to the country than any law or debate.

• Ideological vagueness between the large parties: 56% are not at all certain that they will vote for the same party in the next elections. 36% are certain that the differences between the large parties are small or non-existent where issues of foreign affairs and national security are concerned. This is a significant rise since 1992 when only 13% thought that there are no differences between them.

• Trust in government institutions: there had been a steep decline in the amount of trust the public has in the police force (66% in 2004, 57% in 2005, and 44% in 2006). It is important to note that this survey was taken early in February 2006, when the police force was in the middle of a political storm during the evacuation of Amona.

• The disengagement plan: 82% of those surveyed are certain that there is no justification for using violence to achieve political goals. Conversely, there has been a decrease in the firm opposition to refusing military orders due to personal ethics or ideology, more specifically – refusing to obey orders to evacuate settlers. A mere 58% are against such a refusal, as opposed to 70% that opposed it last year.

• The strength of and support for democracy: 85% are certain that democracy is the desirable regime for Israel (a rise of 5%), while 77% maintain that democracy is the best form of government in general.

• Social and ideological rifts: respondents to the survey were asked about their views concerning the relationships between different groups in the population. 26% point to good relationships between religious and secular Jews, and only 14% hold that relations between Jews and Arabs are good. 29% think that a Jewish majority is required on decisions that determine the Israel’s fate, while 62% support the demand that the government encourage Arab emigration from the country.

• Lowered satisfaction rates: Israeli citizens are less satisfied with Israel’s overall situation. 40% of those surveyed are certain that Israel’s overall situation is not good, and 74% assess that the way that the government dealt with problems is inadequate.

• On an optimistic note: 86% are proud to be Israeli; 90% want to live in Israel in the long run, and 69% consider themselves a part of the State of Israel and its problems.

This Index, along with the low voter turnout for the last election, emphasizes the fact that Israeli citizens feel apathy towards the political party system. Old struggles between parties are seen as irrelevant, and few citizens maintain strong feelings of identification with any given party. Now more than ever, Israelis are very interested in politics, speak about politics, and stay informed, yet their level of political involvement has decreased. The source of this problem ranges from the low level of feeling that one has the ability to influence public policy, to worrying rates of political corruptness, and low levels of satisfaction from the government and the country’s leaders. All of these factors have apparently brought about a decrease in the voter turnout in the 2006 elections. The repercussions of these disconcerting trends on the legitimacy of the government and of democratic rule should raise serious concern not only among anyone who is involved in politics, but among us all.

The Jewishness of Israel

Author:

Ravitzky Aviezer, Stern Yedidia Z.

Topic:

Religion and State

Publishing Date:

2007

Series:

The Democracy Library

Category:

Publications Catalog

Many Israeli leaders expected that the question of national identity would be settled with the establishment of the State of Israel. They believed that one well-defined group holding cultural and political hegemony could crystallize the emergent society around it, and develop unifying symbols and myths for the new society, based on the past and in spite of it. But their hopes did not materialize. The actual, modern State of Israel does not settle the controversy over Jewish culture and Israeli identity. On the contrary, the new state defines the battlefield, the argument and the dialogue; it provides a concrete dimension for a discussion about questions of memory, hope, outlook, and faith. This should not be surprising. In hindsight, this development flows naturally from the rationale of the Zionist process and is more compatible with it than the aspiration for a common focus and a collective consciousness.

It is possible to see the entire Zionist venture as a stubborn attempt to establish a “covenant of fate” and a communal solidarity, despite the collapse of an all-encompassing agreement about the “covenant of destiny.” Until a few generations ago, the Jewish people could exist as a people without a land, state, or single language because its sons and daughters relied on a common cultural basis: the Torah, commandments, Halakhah [Jewish law], prayer, ceremony, and symbol. All these, in their day, were absolute, obvious facts and were the linchpins of Jewish communities in the West and East. Differences in customs between communities did not obscure the closeness and similarity between them and did not undermine the common basis of Jewish civilization; even territorial dispersion and the absence of a government did not make the effort to live according to one constitution and one law (in the broad sense) more difficult, and did not destroy the foundations of communal self-definition.

But this base has collapsed in the modern era. Even a religious Jew would be hard put today to assert that faith and Halakhah are the factors that unite the entire people. Even he would be forced to admit sadly that

the Jewish religion now splits us no less than it bonds us. In light of this, Zionism arose and offered an alternative solution. It sought to establish a concrete existential base for the Jewish people, to build a common home precisely after the loss of spiritual commonality. In this sense one can see the modern national awakening as a heroic, almost desperate, effort to establish a new national-political focus that could support the collective under conditions of cultural and religious polarization. The ideological split, therefore, is an essential basis of the Zionist reawakening. It is not an obstacle but a defining factor.

The tangible existence of the State of Israel sharpened the controversy and constantly added new arguments. The revolutionary change in the world of the Jews—from being a ruled minority to becoming a sovereign majority; from living a communal life to leading a national life; from living in exile and dispersion to living in territorial concentration—did not allow for a smooth, unbroken transition from the old to the new. The moment the members of the traditional ideological viewpoints gathered together, out of the firing range, as it were, they had to make immediate political agreements and decide on urgent legal issues. They were also faced with specific questions of ideology, values, and culture—ques