Whatever the outcome of the third round in the election, it will not end the structural political crisis. A clear victory by either side will only put him off for a while. Some sides are not unique to Israel. In Europe and the US, too, social-class turmoil is evident, resulting in instability in the party arena that is essential to representative democracies. Liquidity, uncertainty, and undermining are now characteristic of even old and stable bipartisan democracies.

The nature of instability is unclear. Warnings from "fascism at the gate" or the threat of communism are nothing but unsuccessful attempts to understand new troubles in terms of old trouble. More significant explanations are focused on the dysfunction of nation-states and the uncontrolled social-class consequences of globalization and immigration. But in Israel, the general instability fits into an acute crisis in its democratic representation system.

On the face of it, the current regime crisis in Israel stems from the fact that the draws between the major political blocs, similar to the one drawn by several governments in 1984 and 1988, have now been combined with a considerable reduction in Likud's flexibility and ability to form coalitions, due to his confrontation with the legal system. So far, Israeli politics has largely been "consensus politics" and compromise. This allowed the establishment of the unity governments, for example. But the talent for compromise was almost completely lost, due to the growing judgment and overthrow of journalist-politician relations.

The legal system is, by its very nature, a system of decision: discussing, and ultimately decisive. As the mix of law in Israeli politics grows, as it becomes political and politics becomes legal, a pattern of "decisive politics" is increasingly being established. But unlike in the United States or the United Kingdom, two states that call "decisive politics," in the Israeli case, the decision is not for politicians who win elections and are elected officials, but for some kind of legal politician, senior official. Our law and order descend into the murky valley of politics to Save her from her sins - and actually paralyze her.

In our unfortunate situation, politicians cannot compromise and come to the solutions of such unity governments in the 1980s or the one recently proposed by President Rivlin. Acting on the outside is a political-legal entity that does not know what a compromise is. The current calamity seed was sown in Gantz's first speech. He declared him unreserved loyalty to the political tenets of the legal system, which of course are presented to us as non-political. He defined Blue White as a mandarin party, that is, military, economic, legal, media, academic or diplomatic experts, subjecting it to the arrangements (or "junta") of the free and business professions in Israel. Yesterday, in a radio interview, he declared that he was getting the "superiority" of the legal system over the political. Therefore, blue and white is not eligible for political compromises. When it connects with the conflict of the system of law and order with a rival ruling party, you get the current plunder.

These are the immediate characteristics of the plunter. But its severity is much more apparent when you realize that it is a deep low point in a long political crisis that dates back to the disintegration of the 1980s single governments in the "stinking exercise" of Shimon Peres in 1990. Israeli compromise politics stemmed from the extreme relative electoral system that fostered a multiplicity of parties and forced them to compromise. But the compulsion to enforce this method was based on the power of Mapai, and then the power of both rivalries, the Likud and the Labor Party. These plasters did not prevent the weakening process of the political system, which was a prerequisite for the deleterious penetration of the legal system into the political arena.

Thus, we have been given a dysfunctional hybrid regime. On the relative electoral system, which requires "consensual politics," a judicial system was increasingly made up of a political device by former Labor movement elites, as Prof. Mautner showed. The result is an inability to reach a decision, because of the relative electoral system, and an inability to reach agreement, because of the judgments of politics.

Prof. Avi Barali is a lecturer at the Ben-Gurion Institute for Israel Studies and Zionism at Ben-Gurion University