Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig – Israel Needs a “Preferendum”
Were you aware that “salience” is a critical word for democratic elections? The recent Judicial Reform brouhaha is a classic (counter-)case, highlighting one of the central flaws of modern electoral systems, of which Israel suffers more than most. The time has come to consider a not-so-radical solution.
On January 4, 2023, when Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his planned series of new laws under the rubric of “Judicial Reform,” everyone was surprised (including PM Netanyahu, who was not told of the speech details). Among those taken aback were most of the Israelis who voted for the Likud – for the simple reason that the plan was not part of the party’s election campaign! Of course, this was not the first time a political party (Israeli or anywhere else) “hid” a major piece of legislation or policy during its campaign for votes. However, the Likud’s case is extreme: it hasn’t published a party platform since 2009!!
This is not to say that Likud voters didn’t care about “judicial reform.” But how many of them? And of those who did care, was this their first or their fourth, or perhaps their last priority? And even if one of their top priorities, what specific aspects of the current judiciary system bothered them? (Many would probably say “the long wait to get to trial” – the one important thing that Levin’s current series of proposed reforms does not deal with!)
In short, current election systems are very “gross” ways of determining or guiding government policy. One simple, albeit minor, solution would be to require parties standing for election to publish an official platform outlining its central policy proposals – and if we wanted to be even more demanding, make them publish actual drafts of legislation and regulations that they intend to introduce. Would most voters read this? Of course not, but the media would “synthesize” these – explaining as well as criticizing or supporting the various proposals. Still, one party could list a few economic policies, another might focus on security issues – and then we end up with a non-comparative cacophony.
Another “solution” is part of the electoral arsenal in various democracies: the referendum. Here a specific important policy (or law) is placed on the public agenda, and the public gets to vote on it. However, in most cases, it is the legislature that initiates the process (a few enable broad-based, citizen initiatives). The real problem, here too, is that this specific issue might not be the one that the general public is most concerned about – what political scientists call “salience.” Another problem with referenda is that the wording can skew responses depending on how the referendum is phrased (an excellent, recent example: the misuse of the word “sarvanut”/refusal to serve in the army when we are really talking about volunteer reservists who no longer are willing to do non-compulsory service).
What then could be added to the democratic arsenal that has not yet been tried? It’s called the “Preferendum,” through which the public gets to prioritize the issues that most concern them i.e., which policy areas do they prefer the government deal with as an immediate priority?
Without getting bogged down in too many details, here is the general approach:
1) A permanent, non-partisan Preferendum Council is established by law with sufficient funding.
2) Once new elections are called (in Israel, around 100 days before Election Day), that Council chooses a representative cross-section of society (let’s say 120 people; the number can be larger) as a Citizen Assembly to discuss all the issues on the public agenda.
3) The Citizen Assembly can ask and receive from the Preferendum Council all the information it needs for its deliberations.
4) The Citizen Assembly is charged with coming up with a complete list of the most important and pressing issues that the country faces and/or is found on the public agenda (media reporting, social media commentary etc.). This does NOT include any specific policy/legislative prescriptions but rather ONLY specifies which issues have the highest priority e.g., reducing inflation; expanding settlements; raising teachers’ salaries; lowering the cost-of-living; pursuing a peace agreement with the Palestinians; requiring all Israeli citizens (including haredim and the Arab sector) to do army or civil, national service; etc. etc.
5) This list must be published a minimum 30 days before Election Day to enable widespread public discussion, media coverage, and the citizenry’s consideration.
6) The list becomes part of (NOT a substitute for) the regular election ballot for preferred political party. Each voter casts the traditional political party ballot, and also prioritizes the Citizen Assembly’s list, writing “1” next to their highest priority, “2” aside their second most salient issue, and so on (no need to prioritize all of the alternatives) – until number 10 (this too could be fewer or more; the Citizen Assembly or the Preferendum Council decides that up front).
7) Each preference is added across all ballots. All #1 placements get 10 points; #2s receive 9 points; and so on in descending order until 1 point is allotted for a #10 preference vote.
8) The Preferendum results are not legally or constitutionally binding on the elected government; however, it is a clear indication of what the public wishes these newly elected representatives to deal with.
The result: from a purely “constitutional” standpoint, the present system stands as is: the same system for electing Knesset members and ultimately the Government. No “radical” change here. However, the additional Preferendum has the advantage of “forcing” the public to consider not only “WHO” will represent them, but also “WHAT” those representatives should concern themselves with. As such, it becomes a quasi-official cudgel with which to hit the Government and Knesset, if and when they don’t generally adhere to the public’s salience preferences. And it certainly should minimize (perhaps even eliminate) the type of major, out-of-the-blue legislative initiatives that we are witnessing in the current “Judicial Reform” that few voted for on November 1, 2022, or were even aware it is a central election issue.
