ISRAEL'S DEMOCRACY AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Author(s): Benyamin Neuberger
Source: Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 3/4, Jewish Political Studies in the
University (Fall 1989), pp. 67-75
Published by: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25834159
Accessed: 01-12-2018 13:13 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25834159?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Jewish Political Studies Review
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ISRAEL'S DEMOCRACY AND
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Benyamin Neuberger
This paper indicates how fruitful the integration of Israeli politics
into comparative politics may be both for the study of Israeli politics and
for theory-building in comparative politics. Special characteristics of the
Israeli polity ? constitutional government without a constitution, the re
ligion-state relationship, the control system of the Arab minority, the po
litical role of the "non-political" army, the consociationalism between
Orthodox and secular elites, and the impact of the occupied territories on
Israel's democracy ? can be better understood in comparative perspective.
In the same way comparative political studies in areas such as the rise and
fall of dominant parties, the mode of operation of grand coalitions, the
role of the military-industrial complex in a liberal democracy, the prob
lem of "new" minorities, the influence of diasporas, and the constitutional
dilemmas involved in constitutional engineering in deeply divided soci
eties could very well benefit from a closer study of the Israeli polity.
Basically there are two ways to integrate Israeli politics into the
field of comparative politics ? to deal with Israeli politics from a
heavily comparative perspective or to utilize Israel as one of the case
studies in comparative politics. Comparative politics can contribute
much to a better understanding of Israeli politics and it is relatively
easy to provide a comparative perspective for the analysis of Israeli
politics. The more challenging task is to utilize Israeli politics in com
parative politics ? both in theory-building and in dealing with the
Israeli polity as a case study. The aim of this paper is to indicate areas
of fruitful research in both Israeli and comparative politics.
One question which has to be dealt with in this context is the ques
tion of Israel's "uniqueness" or "normalcy." If Israel is totally unique it
has very little to offer, since comparative politics assumes a certain
balance between similarities and differentiating characteristics of po
litical systems. Leonard Fein in his Politics in Israel related to the
question of uniqueness by saying:
All countries are unique, set apart by some special blend of geogra
phy, tradition, economic and political organization, ethnic compo
sition and culture. But some are more unique than others and it is
among these that Israel must be numbered.1
Jewish Political Studies Review 1:3-4 (Fall 1989)
67
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
68 Benyamin Neuberger
Israeli political scientist Gabriel Ben-Dor, writing on army and
politics in Israel, also stressed the "unique" dimension of Israeli poli
tics:
Israel is unusual among nations of its type to the point that it con
stitutes a buffer against generalizations deriving from comparative
research.2
In many respects the Israeli polity is indeed unique. One component
of Israel's uniqueness is Israel's Jewishness. Israel is not only the one
and only Jewish state, but it also perceives itself as the state of the
Jewish people and not just as a state for the Jews who reside in Israel. In
1985 an amendment to the Knesset Basic Law was even enacted denying
the right to participate in elections to any party which rejects Israel's
character as a state of the Jewish people. The role of the Jewish
Agency, which fulfills certain governmental functions, also attests to
the role of world Jewry in the affairs of the State of Israel.
There are other unique features of Israel's democratic polity. Israel
is a country under almost permanent siege. It may be regarded as the
only real "garrison democracy." It is certainly the only country under
siege which is, at the same time, a country of immigration. Israel is
also different from most democracies in the sense that it does not
strictly belong to the "Western" developed group of states. As a matter
of fact, only 20-30 years ago Israel was considered a developing country.
Israel is also the only democracy which has no written constitution be
cause of a deep dissensus on key issues.
The association of Israel's socio-economic establishment with the
Labor left makes it very different from all other Western democracies.
Usually the established forces in society ? the aristocracy, the
wealthy, industry, the Church, and large segments of the middle class
and the professions ? are inclined to the right. The peasantry, too,
tends to vote conservative in most Western countries. The Israeli situa
tion is very different and creates unique voting patterns ? the agricul
tural sector and large sections of the well-to-do vote for the left and
the young and disgruntled vote for the right.3
However, Israel's uniqueness should not be overstated. Fein, who
stressed Israel's uniqueness, did understand that Israel is not so unique
as to make it irrelevant to comparative politics:
Emphasis on Israel's uniqueness may, however, be overstated. Were
Israel so idiosyncratic that no useful patterns might be drawn in ei
ther direction between it and other countries, one could hardly jus
tify the effort required to explore its political system. But the bits
and pieces which, combined in a specific way, define Israel and no
other country, themselves have precedents and analogs. Moreover
some facets of the Israeli experience are prototypical and may offer
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Israels Democracy and. Comparative Politics 69
useful insight into political change and development in other
states. Thus to argue that Israel's total experience is more unique
than others is not to contend that students of comparative politics
have nothing to learn from it, nor anything to contribute to its un
derstanding.4
Israel is unique but so are other states. No other state is completely
or even largely similar to Great Britain, or to the U.S., China, Japan,
India or Iceland. Each of these countries can and is used as a case study
in comparative politics theory. The same applies to Israel. Even those
aspects of Israel's political system which are unique can be perceived
as unique only by comparison.
A good example is Israel's constitutional system. The constitutional
problem is not merely formal ? technical but of real importance: Israel
possesses no formal constitution nor regular laws that would limit gov
ernment and protect basic rights and freedoms. Israel's constitutional
system is based on Basic Laws and rulings of the High Court of Justice
which sometimes refer to the principles embodied in the Israeli
Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, there is no Basic Law
which deals with the basic democratic freedoms and the Declaration
of Independence, the High Court of Justice rulings, and the existing Ba
sic Laws can easily be overruled by new legislation passed by simple
majorities.
The legal system itself even contains laws which could make it
possible to introduce a dictatorial government, and only the democratic
restraints of the Knesset majority, combined with a liberal High Court
of Justice, have prevented the misuse of these draconian laws. Exam
ples are the Defense Regulations of 1945 and the Press Order of 1933
which make the limitation of freedom of the press and the imposition
of censorship possible.5 Both are legacies of the Mandate period but ?
as any other pre-1948 laws which were not abolished ? both are an
integral part of Israeli law.
Comparative politics may help us understand the special situation
of the Israeli polity with regard to its legal-constitutional framework.
Almost all other democracies possess written constitutions which form
legal barriers against political encroachment by the government on the
freedom of its citizens. Only Britain has no such formal constitution, but
it definitely has other legal barriers against authoritarian tendencies.
The state-religion issue is a good example, that unique aspects of
the state-religion relationship in Israel can only be fully understood by
employing the comparative politics approach. Charles Liebman and
Eliezer Don-Yehiya have dealt with this problem by comparing state
religion relations in Israel with four distinct models ? the state reli
gion model (e.g., Saudi Arabia), the Established Church system (e.g.,
Great Britain), the Western European approach which regards the
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 Benyamin Neuberger
provision of religious services as the state's duty (e.g., West Germany),
and the separation of church and state model (e.g., the U.S.).6 Even
though Israel does not fit any of the four models, one can understand the
"unique" Israeli way of tackling the religion-state issue only by com
paring Israel with these models.
The constitution and the religious issues illustrate that the com
parative approach makes it easier for us to perceive the unique
characteristics of the Israeli polity. Other features of the Israeli po
litical system are far from being unique. The majority-minority rela
tions between Jews and Arabs, for instance, can be analyzed by utilizing
the "control model" which is also applicable in other cases (e.g.,
Northern Ireland, Ethiopia, Sudan, Malaysia). Sammy Smooha and
Ian Lustick's research provided a breakthrough in the study of the
Arab minority in Israel because it employed comparative-analytical
tools and did not stick to the orthodox, orientalist and historical
orientation of earlier studies.7
A major problem of Israel's democracy concerns the occupied
territories. This paper will not deal with the historic, religious,
demographic and strategic dimensions of the border issue, but with the
impact of the territories on Israel's liberal democratic quality.
The territories are under military administration which by defini
tion can hardly be democratic. Nevertheless, one cannot disregard the
connection of the issue of the territories with the democratic issue.
Large sections of the Israeli public and the Israeli political establish
ment do not regard the status quo as temporary. One can also not ignore
the fact that, in addition to a legitimate (from a democratic point of
view) territorial distinction between "Israel proper" (which is a full
fledged democracy) and the West Bank and Gaza, there is a further
distinction in the occupied territories of two different populations ?
Israeli Jews who enjoy all democratic rights and non-Israeli Arabs who
do not enjoy these rights.8 The third point worth mentioning in this
context is whether more than twenty years of schizophrenia ? being
democratic at home and non-democratic in another territory so close to
home (and which many regard as part and parcel of the one and only
home) ? will not erode democracy within the Green Line. A compara
tive perspective could be very helpful in analyzing the problem of
"schizophrenia" ? of a democracy ruling another territory in a non
democratic way. Israeli rule in the territories could be compared for
this purpose with British rule in Kenya, the French government in Al
geria, or Dutch colonialism in Indonesia.
The "consociational model" developed by Arend Lijphart in the
late 1960s is another example of the relevance of comparative politics
in the research of the Israeli polity.9 The almost permanent coalition
between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox camps in Israel (the
"historical alliance" between Labor and the Zionist Orthodox from the
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Israel's Democracy and Comparative Politics 71
early 1930s to 1977, the Likud-Orthodox coalition between 1977 and
1984, and the role of the Orthodox parties in the national unity gov
ernment between 1984 and 1988) is a good example of consociationalism
between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox elites on the state-reli
gion issue.10
Another example of the relevance of comparative politics to a good
understanding of Israeli politics is the issue of civilian-military rela
tions in Israel. The measure of interpenetration between the military
and political elites in Israel is quite distinct from the Western model of
strict separatism between civilian and military organization, leader
ship and decision-making.11 From a comparative perspective, Israel
may perhaps be seen as a democratic variation of the civilian-military
pattern current in Communist states.
Let us now turn to a different task: away from analyzing the uti
lization of comparative politics theory to the understanding of Israeli
politics and towards using the Israeli case to improve existing theories
and develop new models in comparative politics.
The early comparative politics models which dealt with demo
cratic governments and were developed in the 1950s and 1960s were
based on comparative empirical studies of a few large and important
states ? the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy. General
izations were based on this relatively small sample of democratic
polities.12 In the late 1960s and 1970s criticism of those early models
focused on their neglect of the smaller democracies of northwestern Eu
rope (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and
Switzerland). Lijphart's consociational model, for instance, was based
on his study of these smaller democracies.13 Adequate theories in
democratic politics have to be devised by comparative research
including all the existing democracies. The time has to come to deal
with the Mediterranean democracies (Spain, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus,
Greece and Turkey) and the democracies of Asia (India, Japan, Sri
Lanka, Singapore), Africa (Mauritius, Botswana, Gambia), Latin
America (Costa Rica, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia) and the Caribbean.
Israeli democracy was also almost completely neglected in the
comparative politics literature. In their classic Comparative Politics,
Almond and Powell briefly mention the ancient kingdom of Israel
while ignoring modern Israel.14 In Lijphart's more recent book
Democracies, Israel is dealt with briefly and superficially.15
The study of the Israeli polity may well contribute to theory
building in those areas of comparative politics where Israel shares
common characteristics with a selected group of states large enough to
justify comparisons, generalizations, and theory-building.
The rise and fall and the mode of operation of dominant parties is
one example. Since World War II we have seen dominant party systems
operating in Italy, India, Japan, Malaysia, Sweden and Israel. Any
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 Benyamin Neuberger
effort to build a comparative theory will have to include the Israeli
case of Labor's dominance between 1933 and 1977.16
The Israeli experience of grand coalitions (in the years 1967-1970
and 1984-1988), together with the examples of Austria, Switzerland,
Belgium, Western Germany and Great Britain during World War II, is
vital for the development of a meaningful theory regarding grand
coalitions, their role in democratic systems, and their mode of opera
tion. So is the relationship between diasporas and mother countries ?
a theme which calls for comparative research focusing on Ireland, In
dia, China, Lebanon, Greece, Italy and Israel.17
The answer to the question whether a democracy needs a demo
cratic consensus of the whole population, of the "political stratum," or
whether consensus is not at all a conditio sine qua non of democratic
government, would benefit greatly from empirical findings pertaining
to Israel.18 Similarly, a comparative analysis of the role of the mili
tary-industrial complex in a liberal democracy should not disregard
Israel, with its large military industries, defense budgets, and
"security establishment."19
Research on Israel could make a major contribution to comparative
politics by focusing on the connection between the constitutional frame
work and the depth of cleavages in the society. The question is what
should be done in a situation of high tension and polarization. Should
an effort be made to solve the internal conflict by a clear-cut constitu
tional decision in the form of a formal constitution? In postwar Italy
and in the French Fifth Republic this approach has been successful, but
in Cyprus and Lebanon it has failed completely. The Cypriot Constitu
tion of 1960 and the Lebanese Pact of 1943 were constitutionally
inflexible and aggravated societal conflicts by preventing the adapta
tion of the political system to new circumstances. Israel has chosen a
wholly different path by indefinitely postponing the enactment of a
constitution in order to avoid further polarization and constitutional
rigidity in a situation of rapid change and continuing conflict. The price
Israel has paid for this approach is to leave the Israeli polity legally
vulnerable to authoritarian currents. Israel is certainly a fascinating
case study for the constitutional dilemmas facing deeply divided soci
eties.
The "deviation" of Israeli democracy from the liberal democratic
model on the state-religion issue is highly interesting for comparative
research. The liberal democratic state has to provide freedom of reli
gion and freedom from religion.20 Freedom of religion or freedom of
worship for all faiths is guaranteed by Israeli law and practice, but
freedom from religion, the freedom to enjoy all basic rights without be
ing forced to accept religious authorities, laws and procedures, does not
exist in Israel. In matters of marriage and divorce, for example, all
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Israel's Democracy and Comparative Politics 73
Israeli citizens are by law subject to the jurisdiction of religious laws
and authorities.
On the religion-state issue the current theories are deficient be
cause they are based on a few known Western cases while disregarding
the wealth of cases in Southern Europe, the Middle East, Asia and
Latin America. Comparative research on this issue, which does not
disregard Spain and Greece, Turkey and Sri Lanka, India and Japan,
Brazil and Costa Rica, would be highly illuminating. The saliency of
the religious issue in Israel makes the Jewish state one of the most in
teresting cases for comparative research.
Another problem area of Israel's democracy which should be of in
terest to scholars of comparative politics concerns the status of the
Arab minority in Israel. From a superficial and formal point of view,
the Israeli Arabs enjoy full equality: they are citizens, vote for the
Knesset, and have the right to be elected to any office ? from the
presidency of the state down to municipalities. Nevertheless, Arabs in
Israel also face institutional discrimination which constitutes a serious
deviation from the liberal democratic model. One aspect of
discrimination has to do with the transfer of typical governmental
functions (e.g., the establishment of agricultural settlements and the
rehabilitation of slum areas) to the Jewish Agency which caters only to
the needs of the Jewish population. The fact that Arab villages and
towns are not designated as development areas and towns and are de
nied grants, loans, tax exemptions and other privileges to which they
are entitled according to objective socio-economic criteria constitutes a
further example of discrimination. A third example would be the
practice of granting child allowances not only to veterans but aiso to
Jews who did not serve in the army, while denying the same al
lowances to Arab non-veterans.
A comparative study of the Arabs in Israel with other minorities
around the globe could be very illuminating. The Israeli Arab minority
constitutes an important case study in the comparative research of
"new" minorities which were only recently majorities in a different
polity (Hindus in Pakistan, Catholics in Ulster, Lithuanians in the
Soviet Union) or of minorities in a nation-state which are, in fact, ma
jorities in the wider region (Malays in Singapore, Tamils in Sri Lanka,
Sunnis in Lebanon, Africans in the Sudan).
The purpose of this short paper was to indicate how fruitful the
integration of Israeli politics into comparative politics may be both for
the study of Israeli politics and for theory-building in comparative
politics. Special characteristics of the Israeli polity ? constitutional
government without a constitution, the religion-state relationship, the
control system of the Arab minority, the political role of the "non-po
litical" army, the consociationalism between Orthodox and secular
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 Benyamin Neuberger
elites, and the impact of the occupied territories on Israel's democracy
can be better understood in comparative perspective.
In the same way comparative politics studies in areas such as the
rise and fall of dominant parties, the mode of operation of grand coali
tions, the role of the military-industrial complex in a liberal democ
racy, the problem of "new" minorities, the influence of diasporas, and
the constitutional dilemmas involved in constitutional engineering in
deeply divided societies could very well benefit from a closer study of
the Israeli polity.
Notes
1. L. Fein, Politics in Israel (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 1.
2. G. Ben-Dor, "Politics and the Military in Israel: The 1973 Election
Campaign and its Aftermath," in A. Arian (ed.), The Elections in Is
rael - 1973 (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1975), p. 119.
3. On Israeli electoral behavior, see the volumes edited by A. Arian on
the elections of 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981 and 1984.
4. L. Fein, p. 3.
5. On the legal situation, see M. Negbi, Above the Law ? the Constitu
tional Crisis in Israel (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1987), (Hebrew).
6. C. Liebman and E. Don-Yehiya, "Separation of Religion and State in
Israel: A Program or a Slogan?" in C. Liebman and E. Don-Yehiya, Re
ligion and Politics in Israel (Bloomington, Indiana University Press,
1984), pp. 15-30.
7. I. Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State ? Israel's Control of a National
Minority (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980); and S. Smooha,
The Orientation and Politicization of the Arab Minority in Israel
(Haifa: Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of
Haifa, 1983).
8. See B. Neuberger, "Greater Israel and Liberal Democracy," Israeli
Democracy, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Tel Aviv: Israel-Diaspora Institute at Tel
Aviv University):30-35.
9. On the consociational model, see K. McRae (ed.), Consociational
Democracy ? Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies
(Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974).
10. See E. Gutmann, "Parties and Camps ? Stability and Change," in E.
Gutmann and M. Lissak (eds.), The Israeli Political System (Tel Aviv:
Am Oved, 1977), p. 170 (Hebrew).
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Israel's Democracy and Comparative Politics 75
11. See D. Horowitz and M. Lissak, "Democracy and National Security: An
Ongoing Confrontation," Yahadut Zemanenu (Contemporary Jewry),
Vol. 4, (1987):27-66 (Hebrew).
12. See, for an example, G. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1965).
13. A. Lijphart, "Typologies of Democratic Systems," Comparative Poli
tics, Vol. 1, (1968), pp. 17-35.
14. G. Almond and B. Powell, Comparative Politics (Boston: Little, Brown,
1966), p. 132.
15. A. Lijphart, Democracies ? Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus
Government in Twenty-One Countries (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1984).
16. For an early attempt to compare, see A. Arian and S. Barnes, "The
Dominant Party System: A Neglected Model of Democratic Stability,"
Journal of Politics, Vol. 36, (1974):592-614.
17. G. Sheffer (ed.), Modern Diasporas in International Politics (London:
Croom Helm, 1985).
18. On the connection between consensus and democracy, see H.A. Mc
Closky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Po
litical Science Review, Vol. 58, (1964):361-382.
19. For a first comparison, see A. Mintz, "The Military Industrial Com
plex: The American Conception and Israeli Reality," State, Govern
ment and International Relations, No. 26, (1987):16-32 (Hebrew).
20. On freedom of religion and freedom from religion, see A. Rubinstein,
The Constitutional Law of the State of Israel (Tel Aviv: Schocken,
1980), p. 134 (Hebrew).
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms