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.