Interest Groups and Political Change in Israel

Chapter 2. Politics and the Economy

Chapter 2 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWV Politics and the Economy zywvutsrponmlkihgfed The Political Culture It is impossible to understand how Israel's political system formed and has operated without first understanding its political culture, especially its ideological quality. Ideological attachments, which originated in the pre­state period, have influenced all aspects of the political system­the parties, including their internal organization, the nature of group relations, and the scope of bargaining and decision­ making. In order to preserve ideological integrity while making decisions, political actors have adopted behavioral traits that have continued to affect decision­making long after some of the specific ideologies have lost their relevance. I will first sketch the different outlooks and then point out the far­reaching consequences for the country's politics. Various groups that immigrated into Palestine early in the twen­ tieth century held different views of the type of society they sought to shape. Religiously motivated persons envisioned a state based upon Jewish law. Those from countries with developing socialist move­ ments came with visions of a Marxist socialist state or a social democracy. Still others visualized an agrarian or an industrial economy, in either case directed by the state. Some favored an economy based upon private enterprise. Foreign policy opened up another political gap. At times even before reaching Palestine, pro­ ponents of a particular set of views created their own political party. When the state came into being, these parties remained in force. Each party expected to shape the state to fit its special ideology, oblivious to already existing social and political structures. The expectations of many of the party stalwarts exceeded their experience in compromis­ ing and governing. When faced with that necessity, each group 17 INTEREST GROUPS AND POLITICAL CHANGE 18 developed its own response to the challenge, although not necessarily rising to it. Although Leonard Fein does not discern the complete significance of ideological politics, he colorfully conveys the nature of an ideo­ logical culture for readers who have not lived in one, as he remarks, The tacit requirement that all political debate be phrased ideologi­ cally necessarily affects the substance of the debate, limits what can be said on either side, invests discussion of simple policy problems with emotion appropriate only to more fundamental questions. The White Knight and the Black Knight tilt, in full regalia, in defense of Virtue, where the real issue is an increment to the cost of living allowance provided government clerks. Gog and Magog meet in cataclysmic battle over a decision by the Minister of Agriculture to change the government subsidies for various breeds of tomato. But the very fact that the discussion draws from the vocabulary of political philosophy rather than the lexicon of political bargaining changes the substance of what gets discussed, and thereby changes also the substance of the final compromise.1 Ideology affects not only the content of debate and compromise that concern Fein but whether any debate and compromise will occur at all. Certain issues are too sensitive and are therefore avoided. In some cases this avoidance may occur in less than obvious ways. As Fein recognizes, one often is amazed that in a country where vital issues demand discussion, debate centers on picayune details or irrel­ evant personal qualities of those engaged in the debate. However, it is not, as Fein interprets, that ideology transforms minor matters into major causes, but rather by obsessing over a minor matter, the par­ ticipants in the debate avoid dealing with a more difficult major issue. It is not that a discussion on a cost of living increment for government clerks becomes a battle of right versus wrong, but rather by debating a small cost of living increment, the participants avoid turning to the larger question of equality and distribution of resources. A slight variation on this ideological usage also results in issue avoidance or at least foreclosure or diversion of discussion. Sometimes a minor issue is raised to the ideological level signalling that it is a mat­ ter of "principle‫״‬ that cannot be touched. Although debate occurs, and on the surface the system seems to encourage discussion, there is little real meaningful exchange of views. Debate is held not so much to resolve a problem but rather to ensure one's view is presented. People talk past each other, not to each other. Positions are stated, not discussed. 19 zyxwvutsrq Politics and the Economy Yet, for all the ideological intensity...