5 ms·

You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and

You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government. Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power. Yes secular Israelis could very well be toast if trends continue. What exactly do you think will be the fate of the messianic elements in that scenerio? On that note, happy tisha beav.

mamonster 3y ago
I didn't substitute anything. The reality of the situation (which Harari forgets to mention anywhere) is that these things he is so scared of have ( or will have ) majority or supermajority support in the near future. Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want. I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > reality is that the elections are pretty free > but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution. I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
- thazework 3y ago
  Illiberal democracy is a chimera. Hungary and Poland get to play make believe while safely ensconced in the European Union which they feign to detest. Elsewhere the equation is: no separation of powers = authoritarian regime of some kind // robust separation of powers = modern democracy. Even in ancient Athens there was gradual understanding that assembly decisions require constitutional review, hence the introduction of the γραφή παρανόμων
- poisonarena 3y ago
  I am a right wing secular israeli and the writing is on the wall. I was always with Bibi, but recently voted Lapid, I really don't know what to think or who to trust. Israel has changed so much in the last 20 years, whenever I go back all I can do is reminisce. I can't help but feeling that the Israel I loved is dying. It also feels like a big Americanization of the politics into two parties.
tivert 3y ago
> You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government Isn't that totally ordinary for parliamentary democracies? Don't they literally work by having the leader parliament wear the executive hat in addition to his legislative one? The hard distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is (mostly) an Americanism. > Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power. It's kind of interesting to see how the liberal zeitgeist's view of "checks and balances" shifts radically based on the context. In the US, a lot of liberals have been fantasizing furiously for the past several years over parliamentary systems that lack them, because in the US the "checks" have recently been thwarting the liberal political agenda. Honestly, I think a lot of liberals would actually prefer a "democracy" closer to Iran's system; where there are "elections," but ultimate power rests with a liberal "Guardian Council," so the outcome is liberal regardless of the election results.
maratc 3y ago
> The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government. You have it exactly backwards: the government is selected from the MPs and is supported by the parliament. The most popular way to change a government is to call for (legislative) elections. (No executive elections — these were tried for a short period and cancelled.) The government is controlled by the parliament, not the other way around.
- underdeserver 3y ago
  The government is chosen by the Knesset, and the prime minister is a member of Knesset - and usually, his entire cabinet is also made up of MKs of coalition parties. So a >50% coalition in parliament is equivalent to a government. However, there is the 49% of parliament that constitutes the opposition. Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Today they have absolutely none. There are no checks and no balances on the government/parliamentary majority except for the courts.
  - weard_beard 3y ago
    so you are, literally, both correct. The legislative has never been weaker (minority) and never been more authoritarian (majority). Glad we can all agree on something.
  - maratc 3y ago
    > Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and the power is vested with the majority of the parliament. As it is with any other parliamentary democracy, which is the preferred system across almost all of Europe. (We can add "parliamentary constitutional monarchies" where the monarch does not have any real power to that list.) I also don't see what "balancing power" had any opposition have in the past. The coalition (majority) tries to advance some issues while the opposition (minority) tries to torpedo them. It has always been that way, there is absolutely nothing new here.
- fortzi 3y ago
  The government being able to fire an MP from being a minister in the government is a strong deterrent against this minister from voting against the coalition. The coalition and the government are one, in effect, mainly due to coalition discipline. A good example of that is the recent vote for elimination of Reasonability, where all of the members of the coalition voted for it. Do you honestly believe there's no one person in the coalition who opposed it?

mamonster 3y ago

I didn't substitute anything. The reality of the situation (which Harari forgets to mention anywhere) is that these things he is so scared of have ( or will have ) majority or supermajority support in the near future. Talking about authoritarianism in Israel is useless as it suggests that there is something related to Russia or China or Cuba or Iran, but the reality is that the elections are pretty free, there is no rigging and it is simply people voting for programs they want. I am sympathetic to secular Israelis(they are the economically productive element of the country) but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
> reality is that the elections are pretty free > but I don't like the insinuation that liberal democracy is the only form of democracy, especially since Israel doesn't have a written constitution. I feel like these things go hand in hand. An enormous amount of historical precedent suggests concentration of power and illiberalness tends to erode election freedom, even when preceded by free elections.
thazework 3y ago
Illiberal democracy is a chimera. Hungary and Poland get to play make believe while safely ensconced in the European Union which they feign to detest. Elsewhere the equation is: no separation of powers = authoritarian regime of some kind // robust separation of powers = modern democracy. Even in ancient Athens there was gradual understanding that assembly decisions require constitutional review, hence the introduction of the γραφή παρανόμων
poisonarena 3y ago
I am a right wing secular israeli and the writing is on the wall. I was always with Bibi, but recently voted Lapid, I really don't know what to think or who to trust. Israel has changed so much in the last 20 years, whenever I go back all I can do is reminisce. I can't help but feeling that the Israel I loved is dying. It also feels like a big Americanization of the politics into two parties.

tivert 3y ago

> You substituted the executive with the legislative which is telling, whether you did so in good faith or not. The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government Isn't that totally ordinary for parliamentary democracies? Don't they literally work by having the leader parliament wear the executive hat in addition to his legislative one? The hard distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is (mostly) an Americanism. > Harari's point is that there is no force to counterbalance the executive other than the courts. If there was the court could possibly be weakened with democracy remaining somewhat intact. But of course the goal is not to restore checks and balances but unlimited executive power. It's kind of interesting to see how the liberal zeitgeist's view of "checks and balances" shifts radically based on the context. In the US, a lot of liberals have been fantasizing furiously for the past several years over parliamentary systems that lack them, because in the US the "checks" have recently been thwarting the liberal political agenda. Honestly, I think a lot of liberals would actually prefer a "democracy" closer to Iran's system; where there are "elections," but ultimate power rests with a liberal "Guardian Council," so the outcome is liberal regardless of the election results.

maratc 3y ago

> The reality is that Israeli parliament is weak and nearly wholly controlled by the government. You have it exactly backwards: the government is selected from the MPs and is supported by the parliament. The most popular way to change a government is to call for (legislative) elections. (No executive elections — these were tried for a short period and cancelled.) The government is controlled by the parliament, not the other way around.

underdeserver 3y ago
The government is chosen by the Knesset, and the prime minister is a member of Knesset - and usually, his entire cabinet is also made up of MKs of coalition parties. So a >50% coalition in parliament is equivalent to a government. However, there is the 49% of parliament that constitutes the opposition. Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Today they have absolutely none. There are no checks and no balances on the government/parliamentary majority except for the courts.
- weard_beard 3y ago
  so you are, literally, both correct. The legislative has never been weaker (minority) and never been more authoritarian (majority). Glad we can all agree on something.
- maratc 3y ago
  > Israel used to have norms where the opposition had some balancing power. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and the power is vested with the majority of the parliament. As it is with any other parliamentary democracy, which is the preferred system across almost all of Europe. (We can add "parliamentary constitutional monarchies" where the monarch does not have any real power to that list.) I also don't see what "balancing power" had any opposition have in the past. The coalition (majority) tries to advance some issues while the opposition (minority) tries to torpedo them. It has always been that way, there is absolutely nothing new here.
fortzi 3y ago
The government being able to fire an MP from being a minister in the government is a strong deterrent against this minister from voting against the coalition. The coalition and the government are one, in effect, mainly due to coalition discipline. A good example of that is the recent vote for elimination of Reasonability, where all of the members of the coalition voted for it. Do you honestly believe there's no one person in the coalition who opposed it?