Random thoughts of the day

Election day was a relatively quiet one.

I went to vote around 10:30 am. I went right into the polling station and voted. The other polls had medium length lines. At 16:00, it was reported that the turnout was above the last election (around 42%). The 21:00 news opened with a turnout slightly under 60% (59.4). Not a huge turnout considering that the day was a civic holiday--no work, no school ...

Outside the voting place I met several parties attempting to convince to vote for them, Kadima, Likud, Meretz and Green-Meimad. When I volunteered outside the voting station, at 19:00, it was just Greens-Meimad for a long time. Meretz showed up later. I guess by the evening when the weather turned really cold and rainy, only the diehards were fighting for votes.

Whether or not the Green Movement-Meimad will, in the end, pass the voting threshold remains up in the air (it's now 22:15 and the TV stations have released their projections and it appears that G-M is out of the Knessset). Too bad.

A few issues that I percolated upon today:

1. The surprise election winner: The last three elections have had one party--previously viewed as fringe--made a impressive showing. The last time it was the Pensioner Party (7 seats). The time before, it was Shinui (Tommy Lapid 1st election as its leader) which won 8. Today, I expected that it would be the Green Movement-Meimad. In the end, it may turn out to be Avigdor Leiberman/Yisrael Beitanu.

• As difficult as it is to make the breakthrough, the real challenge is to repeat the success. In previous cases, the party for all intents and purposes disappeared from the map either during the sitting Knesset or the next elections. It splintered--both Shinui and the Pensioners--and fizzled out. (Shinui did appear in the subsequent Knesset, though no longer in the government.) It was a flash in the pan and not a paradigm shift of Israeli political life.
• Part of the difficulty of staying the course was an inability to put aside personal (and personality) politics for the sake of building up the party structure and policies. In both cases, the charisma of the leader was an integral component of its success. Once in power, the other 'leaders' wanted their time in the sun (i.e. ego issues).

2. Voting for a "fringe party" (one not expected to enter the Knesset) is a vote for the stronger parties and a wasted vote (since it's not considered a valid vote--it's not counted).

• For me, I didn't (and still don't) see any significant difference between the three large parties. All three will include Lieberman (extreme right-wing, even racist politician, whose also had his share of criminal investigations including one currently underway which could lead to an indictment for money laundering), especially if he gets 15+ seats. A matter-of-fact, there was no real/actual vote that could have prevented him [Lieberman] from being the balance of power -- a senior member of the cabinet and the effective determinant of who will be Prime Minister. To suggest otherwise--as someone told me outside the polling station--to be delusional (unlike naive as I was called, because I voted for a small party).
• None of the major parties expressed any real interest, either in policy statements or in their past behaviours, in domestic issues beyond taxes and government allowances. Their focus was on external affairs -- the military, the Israel-Arab (Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria ...) conflict. As such, I expect that all three--despite their campaign posture and rhetoric--will behave the same way. If, when, international pressure is applied--especially by the US--territories will be evacuated, negotiations will be conducted with all for establishing 'peace treaties', etc.
• Missing from all three is a serious domestic agenda. No one really spoke about education, environmental issues or closing the socio-economic gaps. I felt that the Greens-Meimad, davka, did address those issues. Unfortunately, either the issues didn't really resonate with the electorate or got lost in the push for larger parties.
• The leadership of the three large parties were uninspiring. While none really discussed recycling and other green issues, they practiced recycling of people (Barak and Netanyahu were part PMs) if not solid waste. The idea of having to vote for a large party because of a need for a stable (less smaller parties) government, works only on the theoretical level. On the practical level, it turns my stomach. Until the larger parties actually become accountable to the population and not the central committee / primary voters, little change in the quality of politics and political leadership can be expected.
• Lastly, the current political reality, stable governments remain more an exception than the the rule. Governments will rely on fickle (self-interested) partners who on a moments notice either over a policy difference (how it'll be cloaked) or personal slight (most likely) will bolt the coalition and force new elections. The four year term of office is more a hope or aspiration than a fact of political life. If correct, there's no real advantage voting for a large party. It doesn't speak for the larger public, to the important public concerns, nor present needed leadership.

Will discuss potential governing scenarios shortly.