Patterns of legislative activity in parliamentary regimes have long been defined by political parties and the division between government and opposition. However, several trends in recent years may challenge this distinction by mitigating the electoral connection between parliamentary behavior and electoral competition. Issue multidimensionality, party system fragmentation, and political behavioral personalization, while common to most established democracies, have been extremely pronounced in Israel. Analyzing all legislation votes taken in the Knesset between 2003 and 2014, this article uses the Israeli case to demonstrate how a fragmented opposition and the prevalence of highly personalized, nonpartisan private-member legislation, result in deviation from the familiar government–opposition divide and diminish opposition parties’ vote-seeking behavior in parliamentary votes. As an extreme case of trends that are gaining ground in most established democracies, this case study contributes to the understanding of the effects of general changes to the political system on legislative behavior.
AndewegRB (2013) Parties in parliament: the blurring of opposition. In: MüllerWCNarudHM (eds), Party Governance and Party Democracy. New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 99–114. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6588-1_6
2.
AndewegRBNijzinkL (1995) Beyond the two-body image: relations between Ministers and MPs. In: DöringH (ed), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), pp. 152–178.
3.
AndewegRBDe WinterLMüllerWC (2008) Parliamentary opposition in post-consociational democracies: Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. The Journal of Legislative Studies14(1–2): 77–112. DOI: 10.1080/13572330801921034
4.
ArianA (1975) Introduction. In: ArianA (ed), The Elections in Israel—1973. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, pp. 9–20.
5.
ArianA (1986) Introduction. In: ArianAShamirM (eds), The Elections in Israel—1984. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing, pp. 1–15.
6.
ArianAKrouwelAPMPolM, et al. (2011) The election compass: party profiling and voter attitudes. In: ArianAShamirM (eds), The Elections in Israel—2009. New Brunswick: Transaction Publication, pp. 275–298.
7.
ArianAShamirM (2008) A decade later, the world had changed, the cleavage structure remained: Israel 1996–2006. Party Politics14(6): 685–705.
8.
BalmasMRahatGSheaferT, et al. (2012) Two routes to personalized politics: centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics (SAGE Publications Ltd.) 20(1): 37–51. DOI: 10.1177/1354068811436037
9.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203028179
10.
BlanderDKleinE (2002) Private Member’s Bills: Comparative Analysis and Recommendation. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.
11.
BowlerSFarrellDMKatzRS (1999) Party cohesion, party discipline, and parliaments. In: BowlerSFarrellDMKatzRS (eds), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp. 3–22.
12.
BräuningerTMüllerJSteckerC (2016) Modeling preferences using roll call votes in parliamentary systems. Political Analysis24(2): 189–210. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpw006
13.
BrunnerM (2013) Parliaments and Legislative Activity: Motivations for Bill Introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
14.
DaltonRJMcAllisterIWattenbergMP (2000) The consequences of partisan dealignment. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds), Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advances Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–63.
15.
DeschouwerKDepauwSAudreyA (2014) Representing the people in parliament. In: DeschouwerKDepauwS (eds), Representing the People: A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.
16.
DewanTSpirlingA (2011) Strategic opposition and government cohesion in Westminster democracies. American Political Science Review105(2): 337–358. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055411000050
17.
DöringHManowP (2016) Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. In Press.
18.
GalnoorIBlanderD (2013) The Political System of Israel. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Am Oved and The Israel Democracy Institute.
19.
De GiorgiEMarangoniF (2015) Government laws and the opposition parties’ behaviour in parliament. Acta Politica50(1): 64–81. DOI: 10.1057/ap.2013.34
20.
GiulianiM (2008) Patterns of consensual law-making in the Italian parliament. South European Society and Politics13(1): 61–85. DOI: 10.1080/13608740802005777
21.
HazanRY (1999) Constituency interests without constituencies. Political Geography18(7): 791–811. DOI: 10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00028 -1
22.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: OUP Oxford (Comparative Politics).
23.
HixSLordC (1997) Political Parties in the European Union. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
24.
HixSNouryA (2016) Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods4(2): 249–273. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2015.9
25.
HoogheLMarksGWilsonCJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35(8): 965–989. DOI: 10.1177/001041402236310
26.
HuberJInglehartR (1995) Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111. DOI: 10.1177/1354068895001001004
27.
InglehartR (1981) Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American Political Science Review (Cambridge University Press) 75(4): 880–900. DOI: 10.2307/1962290
28.
KatzRSMairP (1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics1(1): 5–28. DOI: 10.1177/1354068895001001001
29.
KenigO (2005) The 2003 elections in Israel: has the return to the “old” system reduced party system fragmentation?Israel Affairs (Routledge)11(3): 552–566. DOI: 10.1080/13537120500122768
30.
KenigOTuttnauerO (2017) The decline of the large mainstream parties. In: ShamirMRahatG (eds), The Elections in Israel—2015. London: Routledge, pp. 21–46.
31.
KingA (1976) Modes of executive-legislative relations: Great Britain, France, and West Germany. Legislative Studies Quarterly1(1): 11–36. DOI: 10.2307/439626
LouwerseTOtjesSWillumsenDM, et al. (2016) Reaching across the aisle: explaining government–opposition voting in parliament. Party Politics23(6): 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/1354068815626000
34.
LoxboKSjölinM (2016) Parliamentary opposition on the wane? The case of Sweden, 1970–2014. Government and Opposition52(4): 1–27. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2015.39
35.
MairP (2002) Comparing party systems. In: LeDucLNiemiRGNorrisP (eds), Comparing Democracies: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 88–107.
36.
MaorA (2011) Legislation and Politics - The Success of Private Legislation in Israel. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Acad. Publ.
37.
MattsonI (1995) Private members’ initiatives and amendments. In: DöringH (ed), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), pp. 448–487.
38.
MújicaASánchez-CuencaI (2006) Consensus and parliamentary opposition: The case of Spain. Government and Opposition41(1): 86–108.
39.
RauhCDe WildeP (2018) The opposition deficit in EU accountability: Evidence from over 20 years of plenary debate in four member states. European Journal of Political Research57(1): 194–216.
40.
RahatG (2008) The Politics of Regime Structure Reform in Democracies: Israel in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press (SUNY series in Israeli Studies).
41.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
42.
RahatGHazanRY (2011) The barriers to electoral system reform: a synthesis of alternative approaches. West European Politics34(3): 478–494. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2011.555976
43.
RahatGKenigO (no date) Party Change and Political Personalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.
44.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication (Routledge)24(1): 65–80. DOI: 10.1080/10584600601128739
45.
RiceSA (1928) Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York, NY: A.A. Knopf.
46.
SchumacherGvan de WardtMVisB, et al. (2015) How aspiration to office conditions the impact of government participation on party platform change. American Journal of Political Science59(4): 1040–1054. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12174
47.
ShamirM (2015) Introduction: The 2013 elections and Israeli democracy. In: ShamirM (ed), The Elections in Israel 2013, Elections in Israel. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 1–16.
48.
ShamirMArianA (1999) Collective identity and electoral competition in Israel. American Political Science Review93(2): 265–278. DOI: 10.2307/2585395
49.
ShamirMArianA (2004) Introduction. In: ArianAShamirM (eds), The Elections in Israel – 2003. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 1–12.
50.
ShamirMArianA (2011) Introduction. In: ArianAShamirM (eds), The Elections in Israel 2009, Elections in Israel. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 1–16.
51.
ShomerY (2015) Electoral incentives and individual parliament members ‘Rights’. West European Politics (Routledge)38(5): 1106–1127. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1045320
52.
SteinackK (2011) Two patterns of opposition: party group interaction in the Bavarian State Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies17(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.1080/13572334.2011.545176
TuttnauerO (2018) If you can beat them, confront them: Party-level analysis of opposition behavior in European national parliaments. European Union Politics.
55.
VolkensALehmannPMatthießT, et al. (2016) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2016a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). Available at: https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2016a
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
