The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, thought of civic life as the highest expression of humanity. Aristotle assumed that those who attempted to escape politics were displaying ignorance and were almost less than human. "Man," claimed the philosopher, is a "political animal." Yet escape from politics has become ubiquitous in the contemporary world. A discussion of the very broad term of "politics" is beyond the scope of this paper. In this paper, reference is made to one aspect: citizens' behavior in a democratic regime.
Escapists can resort to one of two options: first, they can be indifferent, ignorant and careless. They can remain secluded from the political world concentrating instead on their private affairs and personal well-being. When they choose this option, they are detached from the political milieu, being citizens only in the formal sense of the term. The second option implies active membership in public life, albeit in civil society. By definition, civil society is not part of the institutional political milieu, but exists as a separate entity. Nevertheless, activity performed on a voluntary basis can provide a haven for escapists by either allowing them to disengage from the political world or by providing a channel to challenge it. In the first case, civil society is individual oriented. Relying heavily on norms of reciprocity and trust, civil society both emerges from and creates relationships and networks among individuals. In the second instance, civil society is perceived as a possible source of anti-politics. When challenging the political order, civil society is engaged in "uncivil" citizenry, which is also remote from mainstream politics. Anti-political behavior can take two main forms: voting for anti-political-establishment parties, and engaging in nonconventional (and often anti-conventional) grassroots activity. Challenging the political order is a form of escape because it rejects the rules of the game and because it threatens the political order. The three types of escapists vary in their regard to politics. Apathetic citizens choose a course of less politics; civil citizens opt for non politics, and the challengers resort to more politics. Each type of escape may be detrimental to democracy. The absence of active support for government jeopardizes its capacity to govern; excessive activity by civil society can reduce governmental accountability, and challenge may threaten the very existence of the state. Escapism, however, according to some commentators, is not all negative. Apathy has been considered to be essential for democracy. It is precisely the surplus of politics that endangers the democratic order. Likewise, civil society, particularly organizations engaged in providing welfare, play an essential role in the care of the vulnerable, whose access to available resources is often limited. Challenge, particularly when it is violent, is obviously not helpful to democracy, but an acquiescent public, unwilling or unable to voice its opinion is also disadvantageous. However, the combination of the three types of escape is likely to threaten democracy.
Israel provides a case study for testing the three forms of escapism. Indicators of voter turnout and party affiliation reveal a growing sense of apathy, and reliance on the Third Sector to solve social problems has increased in recent years. NGOs not only supplement politics, but actually substitute authoritative allocation of essential goods, such as shelter and food. Challenge to the rule of law is manifested by political violence and disobedience, which is motivated by nationalist ideology. The simultaneous presence of the three forms of escape may not be accidental. Apathy serves as fertile ground for challenge, flourishing when the state is not sufficiently powerful to encounter intransigence. Weak states yield power to civic associations motivated by partial and often inequitable interests. This combination should alarm those who are concerned about Israel's democracy.