COUNT THE BLANK BALLOTS
                         Tanya Reinhart

Never was Israel further from democracy as it is in the coming
elections. In the polls, 60% of the voters wanted another candidate
to run against the two generals, but the political system, blatantly
ignoring anything known about the will of the majority, forced a choice
between only two candidates, neither of whom nears the majority of
50+%, required by law.

Less than a month ago, we were still at the peak of the war hysteria
which Barak and his close military circle have generated.  "I have
not yet managed to understand from Arafat that he is willing to
acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel" - he declared. The
spirit of 1948 was thick in the air:  war with the occupied
Palestinians, with the Israeli Palestinians, and "if necessary" -
with Syria and the whole Arab world. For the first time in his cadence,
Barak looked glowing and focused, like someone who has finally reached
self realization.

This dangerous and power driven general is now being packaged as our
savior the knight of peace.  And those who don't want him, are stuck
with Sharon.

We reached this state through a long process of neglect of the
basic values of democracy. Formally, the elections system of Israel
is similar to that in France. There too, the law states that the
(presidency) elections can be decided on the first round only with
absolute majority, namely, if there is a candidate who got more than
50% of the votes.  But there, there are always more than two
candidates.  The underlying assumption is that the elections are the
time at which the society determines its way for the next few years.
If no candidate has gained in advance the support of the majority,
there should be a second process of discussion and convincing, towards
the second round.

But in Israel, there is already a tradition of forcing a decision
in the first round. In the last, 1999, elections massive pressure
was exercised on the other candidates to withdraw before the first
round. This time this was already guaranteed at the start, with a
hasty decision process,in a military style.

Still, even under such circumstances, it would not have been possible
in France to force the voters to elect in a single round one of two
hated candidates. Assume that one candidate got 35% of the votes,
and the other - 40%.  The other 25%, who object to both, casted a
blank ballot. The result is that no candidate got the required 50%,
and a solution should be found in another round.

But in Israel, at the eve of the 1996 elections, when Peres feared
the blank ballots which awaited him following his 'grapes of wrath'
attack on Lebanon, he enforced a regulation stating that the blank
ballots are "disqualified", namely, they are not counted in the total
of which 50% is required. Thus, with just one arbitrary law, the most
essential principle underlying this system of elections -that an
absolute majority is needed to decide in the first round - has simply
vanished.

In practice, it is because of this regulation that Peres lost the
elections. 5% of the voters, from the left, voted nevertheless blank.
Had their votes been counted, Netanyahu too would not have passed
in the first round. Nevertheless, the regulation stayed, like so many
illegal regulations, so easy to pass in Israel. In the present
situation, those who do not accept the predetermined choice generated
by the power system face a clear verdict: "disqualified" - out of
the political game!

Why should Barak worry about the smashing lack of support he
encounters? The winner will be the one who can get the peace-voters,
and on this front, Barak believes he is omnipotent.

It is possible to pull out of one's hat a new peace process.  As in
the case of Syria, Barak can even instruct his aids to spread rumors
about dismantling settlements.  As long as it's all only in the media,
and not in any written document - why not? In any case, all that is
being discussed is yet another "framework" agreement for three to
six years. Possibly, Arafat can be forced again to sign, shake hands,
and be photographed in peace positions, as he was trained to do so
well during the years of Oslo. To ease his way, the same lies about
67 borders, or division of Jerusalem, can be recycled once again.

It is a bit hard to believe that it will be possible, indeed, to sell
the same lies again after Syria, after Camp David, after the attack
on the Israeli Arabs, after Barak's "There is no partner for peace"
declarations, and while in the territories, the Israeli army continues
to starve, torture and assassinate the Palestinians.

But Barak knows that he is very well covered.  At his service there
is a government that has long given up its right to be informed of
his plans, and three loyal peace parties - One Israel, Meretz and
Hadash (CP)- which will each explain to the slice of population it
is in charge of, that this time it is really peace and we must vote
Barak. He also has obedient media that will recycle happily the praises
of his new peace offers, and a battery of intellectuals who will prove
with a magic wand that we are only imagining that the king is naked.

If Barak chooses indeed this scenario (rather than opting directly
for war, avoiding altogether the nuisance of elections), it is possible
that, as the jubilees of the elections peace fade away, we will find
ourselves again with a single ruler who consults only with the army,
and who will, perhaps, try to argue that he is not subjected to the
parliament decisions because he was crowned directly by the people.
And then it will just turn out that after all, 'there is no partner
to peace and Arafat does not respect agreements', and we will go back
to 1948.

But before we complete this transition into a military dictatorship
in parliamentary disguise, it is still possible to go back to the
spirit of democracy and the law.  It is necessary, first, to annul
the shameful regulation disqualifying the blank ballots, and let the
voters decide. If there is no candidate with a 50% majority, the
process should be reopened, so we can have real elections.