THE ISRAELI ELECTIONS

This is a translation of a column that appeared in the Israeli daily
'yediot' on May 16, 1999 (a day before the elections).

The previous Israeli elections were decided by the ballots that "do not count" -
the blank ballots. 148 thousand people, about 5% of the voters opted for
this choice in the prime-minister elections. (81 thousand of these voted for
a party, but refused to vote for a prime- minister). The Labor candidate,
Peres, only needed 30 thousand votes to be reelected.
What the blank-ballot voters had in common is that they knew they were being
cheated. They got tired of searching for invisible difference between two
identical candidates, and felt that, at the final count, as a voter wrote on
his blank ballot, "Peres and Netanyahu are equally bad for the poor".

For the left-wing voters, the only choice left was the choice of protest. It
does not have to be this way: The present elections system which is similar,
say, to that in France, leaves, in fact, a large space for the democratic
play. In France, there are many candidates in the first round. Towards the
second round alliances are formed, and the small present the demands of their
voters from the big, according to their achievements in the first round.

But the left parties in Israel (which represented about 15% of the votes),
gave up the democratic struggle, and instead of presenting a candidate of
their own, promised their votes unconditionally to Peres.

Many of the left voters refused this order - many after long and difficult
deliberations - and voted a blank ballot. This vote signalled that the left
has not disappeared, that it is possible perhaps to buy its representatives,
but not its votes. And these votes are waiting for a candidate that will
fight their battle.

At the present elections-campaign, it seemed that the blank revolt has had
an impact. Azmi Bshara, who was among the first to call for a blank ballot
in the previous round, dared to break the silence of the left, and ran for
prime minister. For the first time in the history of Israel there was an
Arab and a left candidate for prime- minister. Independently, one could also
rejoice in the Israeli democracy, which leaped a big step forward, with five
candidates in the first round.

But apparently, Barak and his camp do not view democracy as progress, but as
nuisance. An unprecedented pressure was put on the smaller candidates to
withdraw: slanders, threats, column after column in the press. In a well
coordinated division of labor, Barak's party persecuted the center candidate
Mordechai, among the Jews, and the Communist party 'Hadash' did the same to
Bshara among the Arabs. Their combined message is - The hell with
Democracy!; Lets have only one round, with only Barak! Those trying to
insist on their right to follow the standard democratic procedures are
depicted as crazy weirdos, enemies of Israel, and Netanyahu lovers.

It is particularly difficult to understand the CP (Hadash). Bshara's
candidacy could not possibly enlarge the danger that Netanyahu will be
elected in the first round. (In the present elections system, a candidate
needs 50% of the votes to be elected, and not a relative majority. If
Netanyahu does not have that, it does not matter how the votes of his
opponents are divided.) One could expect that the CP, that wrote on its
banner left and equality to Israeli Arabs, would stand behind Bshara, and
call its voters to vote for him for prime- minister, especially in view of
his success in the polls. But the CP not only used any means to press him to
withdraw, but also called its voters to vote Barak, even if Bshara runs.
It seems that not much has changed in the CP since the glorious days of the
Soviet Union: Negotiations between voters and their candidates? Left
struggle? These are stupid democratic games. One candidate is more than
enough, just as comrades Stalin and Brezhnev were elected. A responsible
revolutionary is always loyal to Big Brother, and now it is Barak.

Why precisely are Barak and his vote-suppliers so afraid of a healthy
democracy with two rounds? They explain that having voted for a party in the
first round, the Arab and left voters will not come to the second round to
just vote Barak. In fact, the Israeli voters are amongst the most dedicated
in the world (with around 80% participation). It is very simple to bring the
left voters to the second round. It is only necessary to convince them that
it would matter whether they vote or not - that there is at least some, even
small, points that Barak offers them which differ from Netanyahu. That's how
it goes in a democracy - a candidate courts his voters.

But that's precisely what Barak refuses to do. He is only willing to court
the right-wing and offer more security to the settlers, a 'really' united
Jerusalem, and even 'freer' economy.

So, it seems possible, with pressure and threats, to force a decision in the
first round. (All candidates agreed to withdraw their candidacy in the last
minute.) It is also possible to send vans to the Arab villages and ship the
voters to the ballot boxes, as they did in the last elections. What is
impossible, in a democracy, is to prevent the voters, when alone in the
ballot room, from putting again a blank ballot in the prime-minister
envelope.

As for Azmi Bshara, he proved himself as the only courageous parliament
member that the Israeli left has today. His party - Balad - is a relatively
new party, with many young people and intellectuals, who did not grow up in
the frozen establishment of the old left. They deserve being strong in the
next parliament.