Post election thoughts; a city dressed in black

Thoughts on Tuesday's elections in Jerusalem.

I. The Results
Here's a chart comparing the published poll in Kol Ha'ir of Friday 25 Oct 2013 with the actual results as found on the City of Jerusalem website.

I have divided the 11 into several categories for the sake of trying to understand the breakdown of specific interest groups (I also included two parties that failed to receive a mandate: Ometz Lev because I liked them and Tov Jerusalem because Kol Ha'ir claimed they would get one seat).

The fact that I've grouped them this way makes no statement about their ability to actually work together or how Mayor Nir Barkat will create his new governing coalition. He may pick and choose from among the different grouping without bringing everyone in. [See below III]

A. The City Council

• There were 576,406 eligible voters, of which 225,360 or 39.1% of the people actually voted
• The threshold for a mandate was 6,876 votes.

		Friday Poll			Actual Results
		%		Seats	%	Seats	Votes
Haredi	UTJ*	15.8		8	24.34	8	53,708
	Shas	9.6		4	15.93	5	35,148
	Tov Jm**	2.7		1	0.85	0	1,883
	Bnei Torah***	2.4		0	3.32	1	7,316
	S/T:				46.0	14	98,055
National Religious	Bayit Y	6.0		3	4.12	1	9,097
	United Jers.	4.4		1	4.42	2	9,753
	S/T:				9.31	3	19,860
“Right”	Bakat	9.8		4	14.12	4	31,159
	LikudB	3.1		1	3.24	1	7,154
	S/T:				17.97	5	38,313
“Social”	Hitorirut	8.9		3	11.42	4	25,190
	Yerushalmim	11.1		4	7.33	2	16,181
	Ometz Lev	0.9		0	0.96	0	2,111
	S/T:				20.4	6	43,482
Left	Meretz + ****	4.4		1	5.59	2	12,325
Neighborhood	Pisgat Z	3.6		1	2.77	1	6,120
Total Eligible Votes [1]:					94.58		213,151
Other [2]						0	7,517
TOTAL			31			31	220,668

Notes:
[1]: Reflects ONLY those factions who received a mandate.
[2]: Includes all factions who failed to pass the threshold of 2.5% of the eligible ballots.

* = United Torah Judaism (Yahudut HaTorah), which consists of Agudat Yisrael (hasidim) and Degel Torah (yeshiva) in which the latter is associated with R' Aharon Leib Shteinman (Bnei Brak).
** = "working" haredim (as opposed to learning)
*** = Associated with R' Shmuel Auerbach (Jerusalem) who's contesting the leadership of the Lithuanian haredi community (currently 'losing')
**** = Including a number of other parties, Labor, the Green Movement

B. The Mayoral Contest

• Of the same 576,400 people, 225,254 voted for a participation rate of 36.08% 

	Friday	Actual
	%	%	Votes
Barkat	47.6	51.9	111,108
Lion	28.2	44.57	95,411
Epstein	3.1	3.52	7,530
Undecided	21.1
TOTAL			214,049

Barkat received 15,697 more votes than Lion.

A couple of statistical questions:

1. Why are the number of voters different in the mayoral and council elections? It appears that 106 less people voted for mayor than for the council. Did people refuse to take an envelope? How did they record it?
2. How come they don't list the number of spoiled ballots; 4,692 in the council vote and 11,205 in the mayor vote.

II. How did it happen?

(a) First, the relatively low voter rate. Overall, the rate across the country was in the low 40's, so Jerusalem didn't fare badly. While the haredi rate is well above 50% (some in the low 80s) the Arab/Palestinian rate is as close to zero as you can get probably not even 1%. Even the secular neighborhoods were respectable. My polling station was slightly over 50% and many other 'secular' neighborhoods were above the average.

I would be surprised if 500 people voted in the Arab neighborhoods (not sure if Beit Saffa should also be included). With the Arabs (at least in 2011) representing close to 40% of the population ( I would estimate 150,000 (out of a total estimated population of 295,000) eligible voters), 500 would be equivalent to a total boycott. That fact alone should drop the participation rate significantly.

(b) I sense that providing people with too many choices, left them too confused to vote.

In areas where the (expected) vote was clear, the participation/non-participation rate was high. Arabs were not to vote, so their participation was under 1%. In haredi neighborhoods where the Rabbi expected his preference the rate was also high. Haredi areas where the Rabbi expressed no preference, essentially giving them a "free vote" (of their conscience) the rate was low (for them it's in the 40's). For the national-religious communities, people had basically two choices--Bayit Yehudi or United Jerusalem--and they voted accordingly.The same also applied with Meretz voters. (For a twist on this see Anshel Pfeffer's "The tribes of Jerusalem" in Friday 25.Oct.13 Haaretz)

The secular (non-haredi) vote, while hovering in the upper 40's and mid-50's, was a confused one. I'm not sure if people want to spend the time sifting through the available options to decide whom to vote for. For me, I saw myself drawn to three factions--Ometz Lev, Yerushalmim and Hitrorut. While each was slightly different, one was more secular, another more activist and the third more mainstream and women focused, they all looked to the same population for votes and each denigrated the other by suggesting only they had enough support to get a large number of mandates. In the end, a large number of this targeted group didn't vote and those who did, diluted "the voice" by splitting the vote denying any one party a significant presence on the council.

(c) Then, there's the issue of divided groups, who for their own reasons, either larger communal issues (as with the Ashkenazi haredi world), a power grab (the national religious community) or personality clashes (middle secularists), divided their votes. So while the need to vote a specific way was clear, the actual vote was not obvious or unified.

1. In the national-religious community, it was a local-national conflict. The national leadership wanted to put in their own people instead of the locally chosen candidates. The fact that the national group (Bayit HaYehudi) ran an almost nonexistent campaign with unknown people (such that the campaign literature the city candidates were placed beside national figures) while the "break-off" group with known local people ran a more active campaign, meant that they garnered 2/3 of the seats allotted to the national-religious community. Their power remained the same just divided differently. (Note: Aryeh King though of the larger community, isn't part of the Mafdal/Bayit HaYehudi party).
2.  In the Ashkenazi haredi world, three blocs ran their own lists. Tov representing the "working haredim" (aka "blue shirts" as opposed to white one) who were polled to get a seat but ended up with none. The Bnei Torah group that represented R' Shmuel Auerbach got one seat (since he's a Jerusalemite and this is his power base). Then, there was the factionalized UTJ list. UTJ suffering from its own set of internal bickering from its two wings was able to keep its differences enough under wraps to present an united front for the City Council elections, to secure 8 seats. The mayoral race was a different story. Their internal bickering meant that some Rabbis refused to support any candidate leaving its adherents to "vote their conscience" (which I would expect resulted in not voting for mayor), and some supporting Moshe Lion and others Nir Barkat and the Auerbach group voting for their candidate. The split allowed Barkat to be reelected.
3. The "center" group as I mentioned above, was also divided on personal grounds, either ego or stylist grounds.

A city split into its different "tribes" which are in turn divided into their mini-factions will make for a difficult next five years.

III. What does it mean?

While the makeup of the Council is fairly clear, Haredi factions control 14 seats, "Right" (Mainstream parties) have 5, "Secular/Centrist) have 6, Meretz has 2 with the last seat a neighborhood party, the actual coalition is unknown.

It seems clear that at least some of the haredi parties must be part of the coalition, probably UTJ and Shas (=13), who else can join and how will the portfolios be divided?

• The Bnei Torah seat is a wild card. On one hand, it's a clear challenge to the Ashkenazi leadership and I'm not sure that powers that be will want to give them any recognition. On the other hand, it's another haredi vote that can be counted upon. In other words, have them be part of the coalition for their vote, but no position of responsibility provided.
• Yerushalmim are non grata. Rachel Azaria was denied a deputy mayor assignment due to her vociferous demands for gender equality on the buses (in terms of allowing women to appear on bus ads as well as non segregated seating), and on the street. She hasn't softened her approach.
• Meretz could serve.They have in the past. However, there are only two of them and I doubt if they want to serve as fig leaf for haredi hegemony.
• Hitorirut is also too weary of being a pawn/fig leaf for the haredim.
• Not sure about the national religious parties. One issue is will/can the two groups work for common cause? Next, they're three seats and may not wield any significant influence on the affairs of the city vis-a-vis haredi life. On the positive side, they align well with Barkat.
• While I'm not sure if Moshe Lion will actually take up his Council seat, the day following the election I heard him being interviewed on the radio suggesting that he's considering giving up his seat to the next person on the list, a long time City bureaucrat who has put in a lot of time working on behalf of the City and deserves a chance to influence things from the other side of the table. Leaving aside the  sneaky reversal of his commitment to the City, I'm also not sure that Barkat would want to have anyone from that faction in his coalition. (Though his own fancy footwork within his own faction means Barkat is willing to work with anyone). It also represents only one seat and I'm not sure it's worthy of a deputy mayor position.
• Barkat's faction garnered 4 seats which if combined with the haredi grouping creates a clear majority (17 or 18 seats). One of the seats is Rami Levy who has a business to operate and has NO interest in any official position, he's only interested in attending meetings (?) and publicly supporting Barkat. While one of the other people on his list is Meir Turgeman (who whom there was a falling out after the last election, but to prevent him from running for mayor, Barkat gave him a safe seat this time around), my sense is Barkat--assuming he can convince his haredi partners--will put his 'trusted' allies in key portfolios like planning and cultural affairs. (He may also try to keep education for himself)

Working against Barkat is that his own faction is weaker than the last administration and the haredim are effectively stronger. So, well he may be comfortable jettisoning the other secular parties, I'm not sure if he's in any position to put his own (faction) people in the sensitive/key positions like he did the last time around.

If the haredim hold the main levels of authority, it'll be a difficult and painful 5 years. 

• Expect a lot of setbacks/rollbacks from his first term; less environmental sensitivity in planning, less attention to the non-haredi school system, more "haredi encroachment" in secular neighborhoods (e.g. Kiryat Hayovel will have a mikva/haredi school instead of a public library, French Hill/Givat HaMivtar will be less non-haredi) and a promotion of haredi needs at the expense of the majority non-haredi populations.
• Council meetings will be shouting and insulting matches instead of a business meeting. Acrimony will prevail instead of courtesy and (general) common cause. The "opposition" will be fighting a battle from the rear trying to stop the coalition plans and the coalition will be belittling the 'outsiders'.

Here's to hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

P.S. Just wondering why Pepe Allou is still on the Council? I think it may be time for him to actually pass the baton to Meir Margalit (who won the Meretz leadership race). Pulling a "Teddy Kolleck", staying on until you die in your chair, is both bad for the party and for the City. All the great work Teddy did for Jerusalem was diminished by his inability to leave while still close to the top. It tarnished his legacy. 

City Council and the next 5 years

Today, finally is Election Day!

While the mayoral race has been bizarre, my choice for mayor was pretty clear. On the other hand, deciding to whom to support (and vote for) for the Jerusalem City Council has been difficult. While it was clear to me that the haredi parties--Yahadut HaTorah (Ashkenazim a tenuous amalgam of  two political parties, Agudat Yisrael [Hasidim] and Degel Torah [Yeshiva, non-hassidim]) and Shas (Sefardim)--would garner the most number of seats and thus, control the council, my concern was who would be the non-haredi component.

I knew I wasn't voting for a haredi party. I knew I wasn't voting for the "usual" parties/factions either, Meretz (too left wing and an coalition of other groups I'm not willing to support), Nir Barkat list (especially since he dumped Naomi Tsur and reconnected with Meir Turgeman), LikudBeiteinu (who I won't support on a national level), Bayit HaYehudi (ran an anemic campaign with a bunch no-name people, but more later). After the winnowing of a few smaller groups/factions, it left me with three viable options; Hitorarut, Yerushalmim and Ometz Lev. I knew at least a couple of people in each list.

Hitorarut is a secular oriented group of young people trying to make Jerusalem livable for young families/people who are generally secular. They have been running programs for the betterment of the city for last almost a decade.

Ometz Lev was set up by Naomi Tsur, in large part because she wasn't being given a realistic place on Nir Barkat's list. She recruited another female councilor and created a women's faction. Of the top ten places, the 5th and 10th were allotted to men and the rest were (highly qualified) women.

Yerushalmim is headed by Rachel Azaria and she too created an interesting mix of people for her list. A number of the people are either religious or traditional, so their focus has been on creating a Jewishly open city. Rachel Azaria was very active in promoting young families, directly confronting the haredization of the city (separate seating buses, defending./supporting the merchants of Ramot mall). She was in the coalition but when she sued the City she got kicked out and was 'ineligible' to be a Deputy Mayor.

Frankly, they're all competing for the same population cohort. Each claimed the other won’t pass the voter threshold.

Why couldn't they join forces and create a strong non-haredi voice/presence on the council?

In a word, personal egos and styles.

• In the last election (2008), Hitorarut and Yerushalmim ran together on the same list. Rumor has it that a donor (or a few) would only give them money if they ran together. Shortly after the election, Rachel Azaria/Yerushalmim struck off on her own.
• They don’t speak to each other. Each has their own working style. Naomi Tsur who is older and comes from the mainstream non-profit world seeks to work the system. Rachel Azaria is young(er) and comes from the activist world, where noise and direct confrontation is the modus operandi (and maybe also vivendi). From a conversation with an Ometz Lev volunteer, despite both being datiot [religiously observant], I got the distinct impression they can’t stand each other—a kulturkampf. At the youngest and most secular is Hitorarut. Not sure the former two ‘respect’ them enough.
• Everyone wants to be the leader and at the top of the list.

In terms of not being able to work together is also an issue for the religious parties, the religious nationalist community and within the Ashkenazi yeshiva (non-hassidim)haredi group. Instead of each group running a unified list, each due to internal politics, their vote will be splintered.

With all the internal splits, I wonder if each faction will cancel each other out.

Of all the options, the bottom line was feeling assured that the faction I vote for will pass the vote threshold. (A vote for a party that fails to garner enough votes—estimated at 7,000—will be considered spoiled and not considered a valid vote for determining the allocation of seats.)

Unfortunately, polls are neither available nor reliable. Based on what I read in Friday’s newspaper, it seemed clear that Ometz Lev was off the radar. In Kol Ha’ir, they didn’t receive 1% support. Their predication was:

8 seats: Yahadut HaTorah (15.8%)

4 seats: Yerushalmim (11.1%), Barkat List (9.8%) and Shas (9.6%)

3 seats: Hirorarut (8.9%) and Bayit HaYehudi (6.0%)

1 seat: United Jerusalem {split off of Bayit HaYehudi+another faction} (4.4%), Meretz+ (4.4%), Pisgat Zeev (3.6%), LikudBeiteinu (3.1%) and Tov [moderate haredi] (2.7%)

Based on the above, I held my nose and voted for Azaria.

Now, let’s see the actual results.

Local Political Action

In just a two more days, Municipal elections will be held throughout Israel on (22 October), including in Jerusalem. For the last month the campaigns really heated up.

People are putting up their prefered candidates banners. A few weeks ago, one of the mayoral candidates had a stand at a street fair & my kids decided he is the one and got a banner which they proceeded walking down a very crowded street with the banner unfurled. The following morning, they had it affixed to one of the apartment windows.

While I'm sure who I'm supporting for mayor, I'm still undecided who to support for City Council.

Therein lies the rub.

Despite the importance of the City Council, the mayoral race sets the tone for the entire election atmosphere. In Tel Aviv, there seems to be a serious and viable challenger to the incumbent mayor. In Jerusalem, on the other hand, it's less clear to me.

There are two major candidates running for Mayor, the incumbent [Nir Barkat] and someone from Likud-Beiteinu [Moshe Lion] a top city bureaucrat (who also happens NOT to live in Jerusalem). The challenger is, for all intents and purposes, a front-person who "other forces". One of his major supporter is a wheeler dealer haredi politician (who only recently returned to active politics after being barred for a moral turpitude conviction). The other major supporter is the head of the Yisrael Beiteinu (Avigdor Leiberman) who has his own personal agenda to advance (including an end run around the Likud Party and Bibi Netanyahu) and Aryeh Deri (the head of Shas--the Sephardi haredi party and a convicted felon whose 7 year cooling off period for moral turpitude ended in time for the last national elections). What I thought would be a boring affair, may turn out to be a real nailbiter.

Whereas in the last election there was a haredi [Meir Porush] and secular [Nir Barkat] candidate and the lines clearly drawn, this time around its more subterranean. In the end, the secular candidate won because of an internal battle within the haredi community

This time around, excluding the Sephardi haredim loyal to Aryeh Deri (and the usual (it's a given in any election) gang of anti-incumbent), the haredi community is split. Recently--interpreted as an advantage to Barkat--the haredi rabbis refused to issue an unified endorsement. Every community will make its own decision. While Moshe Lion continues to hope that he'll be able to convince many of the Rabbis to back his candidacy and squeak into the mayor's chair a la Olmert did 15 years ago, that likelihood is becoming less viable.

The Rabbis will announce their "recommendation" shortly in time for the election. Then, only time will tell if the haredim will cast a vote for mayor or if they'll abstain (and if that'll be the rabbinic directive).

If there's a low turnout [read: vote] from the haredim,, Barkat has a better chance of retaining the mayoralty.

Barkat's success is predicated on a high voter turnout by the non-haredi populations. If they don't vote, Lion will win. Which in my opinion will be a shame and signal a regression for Jerusalem and have profound effects on the political battles/structures on the national political level.An "added 'bonus'" is that the Lion candidacy is splitting the Likud-Beiteinu coalition, with card carrying Likud members supporting each candidate. (Bibi Netanyahu is known to be supporting Nir Barkat).

The campaign has been a tightly fought one, IOW, a lot of mud has been flying back and forth about the qualifications or record of the candidates.

The material distributed by the Lion camp has painted Barkat as a complete failure--the outflow of residents from Jerusalem has not only not abated bit has accelerated, the quality of education (average grades on standardized tests and the matriculation exams) has gone down, Jerusalem is spending less than 50% of Tel Aviv ... While all of this maybe true. He claims to be using figures from the Central Bureau of Statistics, they're misleading and deceptive (as in "there are lies, bad lies and statistics"). I see Lion as lie'on [lying].

While Barkat was far from an excellent mayor, and a real challenger from Jerusalem could have made the race a tight one based in the issues, instead of (personal) power politics, I fear that Lion will be an even worse option for Jerusalem.

1. He'll need to spend his term--like Barkat did his first term--learning the ropes.
2. He'll be beholden to Lieberman and Deri instead of the residents of the city.
3. He's not a Jerusalemite, so he'll also need to learn the city itself--neighborhoods, land marks ...

Instead of making sure the haredim's power is checked (they will undoubtedly win the majority of the city council seats) and sensitive portfolios have kept out of their hands, specifically, education and planning--they'll have the effective (if not the real.literal) control of the City. Monies will be siphoned away from the non-haredi school system (Manch"i) to the haredi system(s). Social services including buildings (housing as well as communal services) will take over the city. Whatever "progress" was achieved over the last 5 years in making the city more open to ALL its residents--green spaces and environmental progress, cultural activities, attracting commercial /industry to the City ... will be lost. Lion will be an "enabler" for the haredization of the city and the quality of life will diminish and many non-haredi people will leave the city.

Can't let that happen.

(Will stop here. Talk about the City Council tomorrow.)

Not your regular Joe

Today's passing of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, marks a watershed for Israeli life. He was a larger than life figure for many, which may account for the estimated 500,000 people who "attended" (if that's the right word) his funeral. He cast a giant shadow over the political and religious lives of Sephardim in particular and Israel in general. He was the Sephardic Chief Rabbi ("Rishon LeZion") from 1973-1983 and before that a Torah genius and prodigy. He was also the founder and face (and power) for the Shas political machine. 

While he was the greatest halakhic mind of his (and maybe even the past few) generation, once he left his book lined library and legal decider world, he became one of the crudest political operatives of his generation. It seemed that with every political announcement, was a racist, bigoted, nasty comment, faux pas, was another opportunity to embarrass himself. If I didn't know his background, I would assume he was another political buffoon. He presided over a thoroughly corrupt political party--Shas--who saw a number of its leadership serve time in jail including Aryeh Deri who was also returned to the political leadership of the Shas party (since everyone owed their allegiance to R' Yosef who picked the party list for election). Whatever, reputation he had as an original and sophisticated religious/legal thinker was tarnished by his political utterances which made him out to be an illiterate fool. As time goes by, which part of him will serve as his legacy?

This conundrum was best represented by David Landau's piece in today's (7 Oct 2013) Haaretz "Ovadia Yosef: The political kidnapping of a Torah phenomenon". The question is whether he was "kidnapped" by political hacks or caught in his own (self-spun) web of arrogance and self-assurance. Whatever it was, he ruled the Sephardi religious--haredi and traditional-- world with an iron fist reshaping its reality.

The question then becomes, what and who comes after him?

He left no clear successor, in terms of appointing anyone or allowing someone to assume a successor role. There are his sons, one of whom he 'arranged' to be elected Chief Rabbi, some leading lights rabbis in Shas and a few protégés who also served as Chief Rabbi (Bakshi-Doron and Amar). There is Aryeh Deri who got himself appointed the head of Shas and supposedly played a central role in the funeral.

It's my sense that the Yosef position will be split into two parts. He was the founder and undisputed leader of an all-encompassing movement, a one of a kind individual and no one is available with the same skill set and charisma to hold the group together my himself (since no self-respecting woman who dare to consider herself as worthy of any formal leadership role). Deri will officially take over the political wing of Shas/Sephardi Jewry and there'll be a fight about who will (ultimately) assume the religious mantle.

If you thought the battle of supremacy of the Ashkenazi haredi leadership was highly contested, this will he even more heated.

Stayed tuned and may his memory be for a blessing.