The New Premier-Parliamentary System in Israel

Abstract

Until the 1980s, Israel had a rather stable and quite effective parliamentary system with a powerful executive, headed by a prime minister formally regarded as first among equals but actually enjoying a powerful position in leading the government. In the late 1980s, when the stalemate created by small and medium-sized parties led to a situation of immobilization, the proposal of direct election of the prime minister was adopted, out of many reforms proposed since the establishment of the state. In this article, the causes for the establishment of a premier-parliamentary system and its impact on the stability and effective functioning of the political system are discussed. An alternative model, based on the principles of the German Kanzler system, is proposed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Giovanni Sartori , “Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism,” in The Failure of Presidential Democracy, ed. Juan Linz and A. Valenzuela (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), p. 115.

2. Arend Lijphart , ed., Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 1.

3. Sartori , “Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism,” p. 109.

4. Ibid., p. 106.

5. See Jean Blondel , “Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1:180-200 (1968). My calculation is based on the index developed by Blondel. According to this index, the calculation of the average duration of Western governments is based on an operational definition of a government using two criteria: (1) that the government served under the same prime minister and (2) that the government was supported by the same party or parties in the parliament.

6. Dan Korn , Time in Gray (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan, 1994), chap. 15.

7. Larry Diamond and Ehud Sprinzak , eds., Israeli Democracy Under Stress (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993), p. 4.

8. Ibid., p. 362 (emphasis added).

9. For the 1965 figures, see Gad Yaacobi and Ehud Gera , The Freedom to Choose (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1975), p. 55, n. 11. For the 1987 figures, see B. Susser , ed., The Political System of Israel (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Bar Ilan University, 1987), p. 490 of the provisional edition.

10.

10. See Avraham Brichta

“Proposed Electoral Reform in Israel,”

Jewish Journal of Sociology, 33(2):87-88 (1991).

11.

11. For a detailed description of the saga of this law, see Gideon Allon , Direct Election (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Bitan, 1995); Guy Bechor , Constitution for Israel (in Hebrew) (Or-Yehuda: Maariv, 1996).

12.

12. For the figures, see Reuben Hazan , “Presidential Parliamentarism,” Electoral Studies, 15:24, 28 (1996).

13.

13. Gideon Doron , “The Political Rationale of Electoral Reforms in Democratic Systems,” in The Electoral Revolution (in Hebrew), ed. Gideon Doron (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1996), p. 73.

14.

14. Basic Law: The Government, Sefer Hachukim, no. 1396, 14 Apr. 1992, p. 214.

15.

15. Sartori , “Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism,” p. 106.

16.

16. Asher Arian , “The Israeli Election for Prime Minister and the Knesset 1996,” Electoral Studies, 17:574 (1996).

17.

17. Scott Mainwaring , “Presidentialism in Latin America,” Latin American Research, 25(1)(1990).

18.

F. W. Riggs , “The Survival of Presidentialism in America: Para-Constitutional Practices,” International Political Science Review, 9(4):247-278 (1988).

19.

Thomas A. Bayliss, “Governing by Committee: Collegial Leadership in Advanced Societies,” in ibid., pp. 223-43.

20.

20. Sartori , “Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism,” p. 110.