Since last week’s elections, I’ve been thinking about the size of political parties in Israel. We have gone from a Knesset in which the largest party has as many as 56 seats (Mapai in the seventh Knesset), or one in which two parties have over 40 seats (the Alignment and Likud in the tenth Knesset) to a Knesset where the largest party has as few as 26 seats (One Israel in the 15th Knesset). The last time a party passed the 40-mark was in 1996, the last elections before the change to direct prime ministerial elections.
Why has this happened? To further complicate the question, look no further than the election threshold. Today, in order to have any representation in the Knesset, a party must win at least 2% of the vote, meaning the minimum number of seats for any party is two. However, the election threshold has not always been at this level, and for most of the state’s existence the figure was only 1%. Indeed, in the eighth Knesset, the Alignment had 56 seats, but there was also a party with only one seat. One would think that with the raising of the threshold, fewer people would vote for smaller parties. Yet, the opposite has happened. Today, when representation by a single seat is not even possible, the representation of smaller parties in in the Knesset is far greater than it was in the past.
After reading Avraham Poraz’s piece in Haaretz (which I could not find in English), I think I finally have the answer. His overall point is irrelevant here (he has some weird, inconsequential idea of how to change the electoral system), but he does make one important note. Opponents of the direct elections experiment (1996-2001) based their claims on the fact that such a system would destroy the large parties, and give too much power to smaller parties.
They were right. In the Knesset before the first time Israelis voted directly for PM, the largest party had 44 seats, which dropped to 34 in those elections. The two largest parties have historically been the major players in any Knesset. In those elections that figure dropped from 76 to 66 (a decrease of 13%). The average combined size of the two largest parties, including every single Knesset since 1948, is 69.77. However, when calculating the same figure pre-1996 (the first direct elections), the figure jumps to 75.77. Since the implemention (and subsequent cancellation) of direct elections, the average combined size of the two largest parties is 54.2.
The public used to be very committed to either Labor or Likud (in any of their incarnations), and the average voter wanted to vote for the prime minister. Along came the wonders of two-ticket voting and people realized they can vote for a party without a candidate for prime minister. What seems to have happened is that a greater percentage public has fallen in love with voting for smaller party, and unlike pre-1996, they have simply decided not to give up that habit.
I don’t think changes to the electoral system had anywhere near the effect that you’re saying.
Back when the biggest parties were huge, they controlled everything in the entire country. Mapai was virtually synonymous with Israel in the early days for many people, at least those who wanted to work, send their children to school, have a social life, get medical treatment, open a bank account, etc. As Mapai has steadily lost power over different levers of the state apparatus, Israelis have felt freer to vote as they desired.
I also think the breakdown of large, cohesive Knesset factions has a lot to do with the breakdown of large, cohesive units in society. It used to be that kibbutzim set the general ethos for all of Israel, even the most cosmopolitan neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and many religious circles. Now the kibbutzim are bankrupt (financially, too) and people’s identities as Israelis come from many disparate directions.
Moreover, probably the most influential procedural change in politics that has produced smaller Knesset factions has been the rise of intra-party democracy that compels party members to vote for the Knesset lists that will represent them, as opposed to those lists being appointed by apparatchiks in smoke-filled rooms.
Most small parties choose their lists in smoke-filled rooms as Mapai and Likud used to choose theirs. And most votes no longer go to Likud and Mapai, which isn’t a coincidence.
Voters think it’s terrific to help choose the Knesset lists for their parties, but elections are designed to put the wrong people in charge, not the right ones, and in the general elections, a lot of people who voted in primaries end up supporting other parties.
I don’t think Mapai has actually lost that much power. It’s no longer called Mapai, and the Labor party is not as tied to the rest of the apparatus – but the Histadrut is still here, and much too powerful, and Kupat Holim Klalit has only been losing popularity in recent years.
I think the breakdown of society occurred a bit earlier – some of it clearly contributed – there haven’t been any 50-seat parties in the Knesset anymore for well before 1996, but people still wanted to vote for the larger parties, to believe they actually matter to who will be the next PM.
I don’t agree about the primary elections – if so, more people would belong and vote for the larger parties – not fewer. After all, most parties still choose their lists in smoke-filled rooms.