The Bankruptcy of the Democratic System in Israel

Democracy suffers from chronic illnesses and is in a state of failure. Given its situation in Israel and other developed countries, it has become an urgent case to address.

Let’s not be mistaken; democracy is one of the most significant achievements of human society. We have been raised to respect and sanctify it. Its benefits throughout human history are well known. We grew up in the light of Athenian democracy and the French Revolution, raising the banners of freedom and equality.

There is no question of turning back and adopting authoritarian regimes. But something needs to be fixed. Over time, democracy has failed in its implementation. The question that should be asked is not whether Israel is a good or bad democracy but whether it’s unnecessary to reconsider the once-sanctified concepts that have become incompatible with reality.

The flaws of democracy are visible not only in Israel but worldwide. It is a global issue that must be considered, and we need to find unconventional solutions. After three consecutive unsuccessful elections in Israel, it is no longer possible to deny the problem. Reality changes faster than our ability to perceive it. It affects democracy, but not only that. The state’s security is in the hands of powerful institutions that struggle to adapt to the new needs of society.

The academic world also suffers from sclerosis and needs restructuring. It is time to challenge the established order without fearing to sacrifice principles that have become outdated. If democracy is a process whereby the best way to govern a country is undoubtedly through universal suffrage, this questioned certainty should be.

Suppose the regime of Donald Trump is the result of a democratic system. In that case, if Netanyahu’s policies are the outcome of democracy, there is no need to recall the numerous instances of obscure regimes that came to power through a so-called democratic system. The successes of democracy have been impressive throughout history, but today, it is going through a crisis.

Politicians use the democratic system unscrupulously to impose a populist and demagogic regime, cynically exploiting the people’s will. Today, it is increasingly evident that this concept hinders the advancement of human society. Universal suffrage as a country management system is a hypocritical lie to citizens. It encourages populism, which tyrants exploit to impose a dictatorship on all citizens.

The system under scrutiny involves the entire population actively managing their country through participation in general elections. It is essential to clarify that we do not intend to challenge ideological values such as citizens’ rights to freedom of expression, equality before the law, or moral and ethical values.

It is not about abolishing the separation of powers or neglecting the protection of disadvantaged classes. The goal is to question the concept that the best way to govern a country must necessarily go through a system that incites citizens to put a ballot in an urn, thus giving them the impression that this act is what allows for proper governance.

In reality, the ballot is merely a decoy. Political parties manipulate citizens with seductive slogans. The carefully groomed immense portraits of leaders and the astonishing slogan bestowed upon them by advertisers divert the citizen’s minds and prevent rational thinking. The image and slogan do not address reason but rather the primal emotion within us. The idea takes control of our subconscious. We must recognize this fact before we go to vote. There is nothing rational in this voting process. Is this compatible with managing a country?

In reality, we are giving our voice to a tribal chief. This tribe, where we were randomly born, determines our vote. Belonging to the tribe is akin to the loyalty of football supporters to their team. Elections only defend the particular interests of the tribe. Therefore, democracy strengthens the tribe at the expense of others.

The tribe has a political party, and the party only cares about the needs of its tribe. People in need outside the tribe are of no interest to the party. The tribe hampers the governance of the country. The current tribe in Israel is now concerned only with its interests at the expense of national interests.

We must ask ourselves whether the electoral principle is the best way to govern a country. Judging by the results, the system has failed. Democracy can easily lead to a situation where a determined minority can impose its will on the majority.

The current system cannot prevent unscrupulous politicians from wielding power over the majority to serve their interests. A glance at world history will prove that some of the darkest regimes came to power through the democratic system, i.e., universal suffrage. It is a relatively easy method to seize power.

Therefore, the opposite of democracy is not a dictatorship, oligarchy, or monarchy. Contrary to popular belief, democracy is not the lesser evil. Today, in my opinion, democracy is detrimental to society.

Despite widespread belief, true democracy did not exist in ancient Greece. In Athens, women, people experiencing poverty, and enslaved people were not allowed to vote.

It appears that a few individuals can collaborate to manage their affairs. Through communal discussions, small groups can arrive at constructive decisions. A local committee, where everyone knows their neighbor and is involved in the same discussion, can decide by majority vote. It is how any commission that citizens can create functions. Failure is inevitable if the number of members is too large or too small. And this is the case when millions of people are involved.

Millions cannot govern a country. Millions cannot take care of all citizens fairly. The danger of inconsistency in voting is inevitable. It is not about limiting the category of people who are granted the right to vote.

Is it reasonable for millions of citizens who vote based on irrational considerations to decide the fate of a country? Should a citizen of a mystical caste, living apart from society and questioning democracy, participate in governing a country through voting rights?

Can a political party whose sole objective is to promote the particular interests of its members be objective enough to govern a country? Allowing every 18-year-old citizen to run for parliament may seem democratic. However, any public or governmental institution seeking to hire an employee requires strict admission criteria for candidates.

Should we not limit the right to candidacy in parliamentary elections to those with sufficient skills for the representative role? Wouldn’t it be desirable for society to establish rules that grant some professionals with knowledge and skills the ability to manage a state? Shouldn’t our society encourage meritocracy so that the best can participate in our progress?

The Athenians quickly realized that the democratic system had failed and opted for stochocracy, where people’s representatives were chosen by drawing lots. Even the Sages of the Talmud used it to appoint leaders to rabbinical positions, preventing the wealthy from buying them. During the Enlightenment era, Montesquieu and Voltaire were in favor of this procedure. These are just examples of the failure of the universal voting principle.

One of human history’s most important scientific revolutions occurred over a decade ago: the democratization of knowledge. A high level of equality regarding access to knowledge has been achieved thanks to simple technological means. Since this revolution, the gaps between the rich and the poor have significantly reduced. Knowledge is now accessible to many social strata, not just an elite capable of acquiring it through financial means. Equality in access to knowledge undoubtedly contributes to the evolution of humanity.

However, the widespread advent of social media has changed the game’s rules, which can be seen as a positive phenomenon at first glance. The dissemination of information has brought about a radical change that is hard to digest. The popularization and transparency of media have created a social phenomenon described by some as “the revolt of the plebeians against the elites”. This revolt can be seen as a desirable liberation of the lower classes who, for the first time, have the opportunity to speak up. However, some corrupt politicians have exploited this system for electoral gains.

In current politics, traditional divisions between right and left have become obsolete. Debates for or against peace and differences of opinion on economic management have become rare. Fundamental ideological differences have practically disappeared. Politicians primarily distinguish themselves by their charisma. Present-day elections in Israel are merely the outcome of tribal affiliation: voters belong either to the world of plebeians or to the world of elites.

At the same time, the omnipresence of popular information overwhelms us, whether we want it or not. It is imposed on us and can be manipulated by those who seek to use it for personal gain. Individuals are not aware of the harm that an excess of information can cause. They are unaware of the tools that can be used to protect themselves from these dangers. Greedy actors can easily influence the consciousness of individuals to their advantage without them realizing it. They can sway the behavior of millions of people. The wisdom of the crowds prevails over intellectual elites. Political manipulators use populism to control the masses.

Populism may have a rightful appeal because the intellectual elite often neglects the needs of ordinary people and betrays them. Not even the trauma of the Holocaust can stop this process. But when democracy turns into populism, it must be combated. From a long-term global perspective, the damage caused by democracy does not prevent humanity from progressing. The moral, cultural, and scientific elites propel humanity forward. They are the ones who guide society.

The masses need an elite to promote social evolution; this is how the world progresses. The essential components of our daily lives rely on professional expertise in each area rather than voting. This is how the various aspects of our existence are efficiently managed.

Our health does not depend on votes, education does not depend on polls, and neither does security. Scientific disagreements are not resolved by voting, just like in academia. Art, literature, music, and poetry do not require votes to evaluate works of art but rather the qualities that make them exemplary. Professionalism fosters societal progress. Votes and elections cannot guarantee the prevention of wrongdoing in society.

The lust for power, the desire for dominance, corruption, and the allure of profit will not vanish. Administrative positions must be limited to predefined terms and subjected to thorough and effective oversight. Boundaries must be established even if the delegates holding these positions are highly qualified. We can also enhance management and address breaches of trust in the public sphere. However, all these preventive measures pale compared to the damage the electoral system can cause in governing the state.

In summary, the democratic system has become an illusion as it assigns a role to the masses for which they have not been prepared. There is no reason to persist in clinging to this fiction. We must compel our imagination to contemplate a state without elections and create an administrative structure efficiently managed by experts, just as in sciences, academic knowledge, defense, or medicine. In a system of globalization and democratization of knowledge, unconventional solutions are necessary to advance humanity.

The writer, Yigal Bin-Nun, is a Historian and research fellow at Tel Aviv University at the Cohen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas.