THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF Middle East INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Programme Briefing Paper No. 3 MARCH 2003 Doves Vote Hawk: The January 2003 Elections in Israel Yossi Mekelberg Introduction Israeli elections are not renowned for producing conclusive results. Observers are usually as perplexed on the day after them as they were on the day before. Nevertheless, this was not the case on 28 January 2003, when the Likud Party led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and the right wing in general, emerged as clear winners. In contrast, the Labour Party and its allies on the left suffered a painful defeat. Opinion polls had consistently predicted a Likud victory, though the margin of that victory was a surprise to most. Yet a comfortable result at the ballot box does not guarantee the quick and easy formation of a new government. BRIEFING PAPER 2 Doves vote hawk: the January 2003 elections in Israel Despite winning less than one-third of the seats, and rifts and eventually the final irreversible crisis. The so- needing to ensure the support of at least twenty-three called national unity government had become a more Members of Knesset (MKs) in order to form a government of national paralysis, and was the main majority coalition, Ariel Sharon emerged as the big reason for the lack of progress of any political, winner of Israel’s elections, with the luxury of economic or social policies – above all the peace considering a number of options for constructing his process with the Palestinians. A number of groupings coalition. within the Labour Party grew exasperated at After experimenting for nearly seven years and supporting and serving in a government which gave three election campaigns with an electoral system them little chance of implementing any of their party’s whereby voters cast two separate ballots, one for policies. They were seeking an opportunity to leave the prime minister and one for a political party, this year’s coalition, but preferably on a matter of principle. The elections reverted to a new/old system whereby only controversy over the Budget Law presented them with one vote was cast, for a political party. This change was just this. It was the culmination of two years in which aimed at transforming the fragmented political make- the partnership between the two largest parties in up of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, by reducing the Israel and other smaller parties had little to show in number of parties while ensuring that those that are the way of achievement. voted in have more seats. As results unfolded on election night it became clear that the reform had Backdrop of quandary achieved only partial success: the number of parties elected to the new Knesset had been reduced by just Ariel Sharon swept to power in 2001 on the ruins of two, from fifteen to thirteen, though the share of the the peace process and the eruption of the Al-Aqsa vote of the two biggest parties rose by more than 27 Intifada.2 He had promised on the campaign trail, in per cent. Likud doubled its seats, from the nineteen it February of that year, to bring peace and security to won in the 1999 parliamentary elections, to 38; while the Israeli people. The resultant reality was one of Labour lost seven seats, to be left with a mere escalating violence with the Palestinians, in a conflict nineteen. that since its inception has claimed the lives of more Israelis showed little appetite for these elections. than 2,700 people from both nations, among them The campaign was dull and marked by apathy, with more than 500 Israelis since Sharon was sworn in as little active participation by the public or even by party prime minister. In practice the Oslo process had been activists. In the past, televised political broadcasts reversed following the escalation in violence and a enjoyed very high ratings, and mass rallies and complete breakdown of trust between the Israeli and demonstrations characterized election campaigns. But Palestinian leaders. Both peace and security remained the public appears to have tired of these forms of elusive throughout the tenure of the last government. participation, and even more perturbing was that on In the aftermath of the recent elections and other polling day only 68.5 per cent of the 3.2 million developments in the Middle East, one can find no electorate cast their vote – the lowest turnout in evidence that this state of affairs is about to change Israel’s history.1 Despondency and despair among without active international commitment and many Israelis can probably best explain why nearly a involvement.3 third of the population stayed away from the polling Deteriorating security circumstances were not the booths. After all, this election was the third in less than only predicament Israelis had to contemplate on the four years, and followed two of the most difficult years way to the polling stations. Israel’s economy had in the history of the state since its foundation in 1948. suffered one of its worst years for decades, which was Early elections were called at the beginning of to a large extent due to the security situation. November last year, following the Labour Party’s According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the decision to depart from the twenty-month long, crisis- economy experienced a one per cent negative growth ridden ‘unity’ government in which the Likud Party was in 2002. For the first time in the country’s history, the senior partner. A crisis within the government economic growth contracted for two years in a row. erupted when Labour refused to support the Budget Recession hit all sectors of the economy hard. Towards Law unless funds were redirected from the Israeli the end of the year revenues in the retail sector settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to the poorest declined by 4.5 per cent, manufacturing output in the development towns and inner cities within Israel hi-tech sector slumped by 8.5 per cent, while exports proper. By refusing to switch Israel’s national priorities fell by 3.5 per cent. Tourism suffered a precipitous in this way, Prime Minister Sharon and Finance Minister decline as a result of Palestinian suicide bombings, with Silvan Shalom triggered the crisis that brought down 29 per cent fewer visitors to Israel. Inevitably the government. However, from its conception this unemployment rose sharply, to above 10 per cent, and government was intrinsically prone to disagreements, those judged to be living in poverty exceeded one Doves vote hawk: the January 2003 elections in Israel 3 million, among them more than half a million children. parties purely on the basis of their attitude to the To make things worse, after three years of low Arab-Israeli conflict, and there are more shades to inflation the rate surged once more, and reached 6.5 political debate than Israel’s relations with its per cent.4 neighbours. Voters also consider issues such as the economy, welfare, religion and ethnicity, to mention Tweaking the system just a few. Nevertheless, the January elections were above all the Israeli electorate’s verdict on the peace Facing these circumstances, and with a war with Iraq process, and specifically the Oslo Accords. That verdict looming, twenty-seven political parties pleaded with appears to be a rejection of the Oslo process in favour Israeli voters to elect them to the 16th Knesset and of a hard-line approach towards the Palestinians and entrust them with the day-to-day running of the other regional issues. Nevertheless, the message from country for the next four years. the public is not quite that simple, and has a lot to do Parties that seek election in Israel range from with the grandfatherly, moderate image that Sharon sectarian or single-issue ones to the more traditional has managed to project, rather than approval of his ones that represent a comprehensive worldview and government’s policies and his own deeds. The election ideology. Israel has a notoriously fragmented political result also highlights one of the country’s biggest system that is in part a genuine reflection of its social paradoxes, whereby Israelis generally support the diversity, and in part the result of an electoral system vision of separate Israeli and Palestinian states living in and political culture which encourages tactical voting, peace side by side, but despite this vote for more and even divisions. To overcome this problem, in the hawkish parties. mid-1990s academics and constitutional legal experts Opinion polls consistently indicate that Israelis came up with a radical electoral reform plan. Of the support a continuation of negotiations with the number of far-reaching reforms proposed, the Knesset Palestinians and are ready to accept far-reaching adopted only the two-ballot vote, one for prime concessions, though they do not believe in the minister and one for a party, which caused even feasibility of a comprehensive agreement in the near further fragmentation, as people did not necessarily future. Despite the suicide bombings, Mina Zemach, a vote for the party of the prime ministerial candidate leading pollster from the Dahaf Institute, found that they voted for. Proposals to raise the qualifying 63 per cent of Israelis favoured ‘unilateral withdrawal’ threshold substantially and to vote by constituency and 69 per cent favoured the evacuation of all or most were rejected. One of the outcomes of the old system of the settlements in exchange for a peace agreement. was that while Prime Minister Sharon won the 2001 Furthermore, shortly before the elections the Peace elections by a huge margin of the popular vote, his Index of the Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace Research party controlled less than one-sixth of the Knesset’s at Tel Aviv University indicated that while a huge seats.