Interest Groups and Political Change in Israel

Chapter 3. The System in Operation

Chapter 3 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWV The System in Operation Views have diverged about how to describe Israel's political system and development: (1) whether the party system was a pure multi­party system or rather was a dominant party type and whether the system was evolving into a looser, two­party arrangement, (2) similarly, whether groups felt compelled to seek party patrons in a multi­party system, related primarily to a dominant party, or were more free­wheeling, (3) whether ideological distinctions prevailed or became less intense, and (4) whether the country was ruled by an oligarchy that became even smaller.1 The different interpretations may be reconciled if they are understood as characterizing different parts of the political system and periods of Israel's political develop­ ment. The main developments are traced here, providing a backdrop against which the specific cases may be observed. zywvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaYV Early Years of Independence: The Multi­Party Period Indeed, during the early period, a multi­party system prevailed. From 1952­1955, the Mapai­led Government included representatives of the General Zionist, Progressive, and religious parties. Many insti­ tutions, such as the Histadrut, were directed by executive boards com­ posed of party representatives, actually "mini­coalition governments." In the Government and these institutions, however, Mapai held many powerful posts. The Kneset was a weak body. The single constituency electoral arrangement with parties presenting country­wide lists did not provide for individual representation or grass­roots group input, and the citizen's political world view was that of party activity and party loyalty. The bureaucracy was subordinate to the parties which directed 29 INTEREST GROUPS AND POLITICAL CHANGE 30 the ministries, and different ministries became preserves of specific parties. Distributing scarce resources, the bureaucracy accrued great power. Despite party control over Government offices, ministers fre­ quently called upon groups to fill positions, primarily because they needed experienced persons in public service but also because they sought a means of controlling groups. Including group representatives in the bureaucracy was possible because interest groups were economic or occupational. The party­ based ideological atmosphere actually precluded idea groups from forming by coopting their potential realm. Instead, it fostered economic, functional groups that could be dealt with by bargaining. Although parties predominated, party­group relations were not uniform on the Left and Right. A picture of party core surrounded by groups is most appropriate for parties of the Left, and among these, Mapai was the most aggressive in accumulating groups and establish­ ing formal organizational ties. On the Right, party­group relations were much more tenuous and tentative. Parties of the Right were not as aggressive in attracting clients, partly because their ideology esteemed individual initiative and independence. Some groups, there­ fore, which might have been expected to identify with the Right did not formally align themselves with those parties. Whereas on the Left, groups affiliated with parties for ideological reasons, on the Right ideology actually engendered group autonomy. Since many group members as individuals held allegiance to different parties, the groups as entities remained autonomous in order to prevent politicization and disintegration. Contrary to the image of almost compulsory party­ client relationships, certain groups chose autonomy. Applying any model to party­group relations risks being too rigid, especially in the very first years of independence. Israel was a small country with a small population at an early stage of state building. Transcending party boundaries and differences was a sense of soli­ darity among those persons who had shared in leading the country to statehood. These leaders often wore several "hats‫״‬ in party, groups, and governing institutions. Conflicts of interest did not worry them or anyone very much. Personal relations became an important factor or tactic for all groups seeking access to decision­makers. Groups which were not affiliated with any party were led by persons who played a role similar to that of a party boss. When negotiating for their group, they went directly to Government ministers with whom they were on good personal terms, often stemming from joint efforts during the pre­ state period or during the struggle for independence. On many issues, groups affiliated with parties designated emissaries who were per­ 31 zyxwvutsrq The System in Operation sonally acquainted with Government ministers. Especially within Mapai, distinctions between leaders of groups, party, and governing bodies were not so finely drawn. In fact, the entire period irrespective of party could be termed the era of personal politics. Besides exploiting...