Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Jeffersonian democracy is based on the principle of government by “consent” of the governed. In Jefferson’s time, however, “consent” was construed to be the consequence of REASON and not simply of one’s will. (Think of the “age of consent,” when a person is assumed to be capable of independent judgment, hence to be responsible for his acts.) Jefferson was a rational or classical democrat.
He understood that for government to be based on the consent of the governed, the governed must be well-enough educated to make intelligent choices between the alternative policies advocated by rival candidates for public office. Classical democracy therefore assumes that these candidates will be honest, will mean what they say and say what they mean, otherwise, the policies of the government will be based not on the consent of the people but on deceit.
Obviously many if not most contemporary democracies are not based on the CONSENT of the governed in the Jeffersonian or classical sense of the term; they are based less on candor and reason than on deception. Such is the case of Israel, whose political elites have repeatedly deceived the public about the character of Israel’s Arab enemies. If proof is needed, shortly after the present writer made aliya in 1976, he was consulted by Shimon Peres’ political adviser, Asher Ben-Natan who, when asked what is Israel’s main problem, replied: “We can’t lie as well as the Arabs.”
I have since learned that Israel’s political elites compete very well with Arabs in this respect. Thus, during the 1992 Knesset election campaign, the Labor Party's official platform proclaimed: "Israel sees in the Golan Heights an area of great importance for its security, its safety and the ensuring of its water resources, even in times of peace. Consequently, in every peace agreement with Syria and in the security arrangements, Israel’s settlements and military control will be maintained on the Heights--on which Israel's jurisdiction, law and administration have been applied." The Labor Party’s leader, the late Yitzhak Rabin, himself declared to a Golan audience: "As for the future, it is inconceivable that even in peacetime we should go down from the Golan. Whoever even thinks of leaving the Golan wantonly abandons the security of Israel." Once ensconced in office, however, Rabin proceeded to betray his pledge to the nation on this crucial issue.
Moreover, Mr. Rabin promised the voters he would not negotiate with the PLO. It is now known, however, that members of Rabin’s party (a party very dependent on the Arab vote) had been meeting secretly with PLO spokesmen in Cairo and in London since 1989¾this, in violation of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance of 1986. Thanks to the Arab vote, Labor won 1992 national election—the election that led to the secretly negotiated Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993. (True, it is common for politicians to renege on campaign pledges, say on health care and on tax relief, but not on the very borders of one’s country.)
One could also cite the deviousness of Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as the Likud’s candidate for the premiership in 1996, conveyed the false impression that he would not be bound by the Oslo Agreement. The mere fact that Netanyahu, in September 1996, admitted on CNN that “no one expected him to meet with Arafat,” indicates that he betrayed the expectations of his electors.
If Israel is a democracy, it is not a classical democracy, for it is NOT based on the consent of the governed as above defined.
A second and related principle of classical democracy requires legislators to be INDIVIDUALLY accountable to the voters in multi-district elections. This allows the people to judge the merits and policies of rival candidates, and to reject inept or untrustworthy incumbents. Viewed in this light, Israel, most emphatically, is not a classical democracy. The absence of multi-district elections in Israel, combined with its system of fixed party lists, allows politicians occupying safe places on these lists to ignore public opinion with impunity. To clinch the point, Shimon Peres, who has never won an election, is Israel’s foreign minister despite his being responsible for the Oslo disaster. And even now he serves Oslo rather than the overwhelming majority that rejected this policy in the February elections.
Finally, classical democracy requires the rule of law. The rule of law renders those who make the laws subservient to the laws, like all other members of the community. Yet, whereas Abbie Nathan was imprisoned for violating the abovementioned law prohibiting contacts with the PLO, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Ezer Weisman, and others, who also violated that law, have never been indicted.
Many other examples could be cited indicating the absence of the rule of law in Israel. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself repeatedly violates the law by rendering decisions contrary to Israel’s most basic law, that it be a Jewish state! Israel may be a democracy, but it is very far from being a classical democracy.