True democracies, in which there is no majority of disenfranchised slaves, as in Athens;
Or denial of the right to vote to blacks, as in pre-Civil War America;
Where women, young people and the destitute have the right to vote;
And that they do not have a double voice for university graduates, as in Britain until 1948 - they are a relatively new phenomenon in the world, lasting only about 150 years.
For thousands of years, almighty kings ruled over subjects rather than citizens.
The fact that kings exploited the treasures of the kingdom for their own benefit was not considered corruption because there was no boundary between the palace economy and the state economy.
But even democracies have encountered the arbitrariness of leaders, even if these were people who came to their posts following elections and not as a result of being a link in any royal dynasty.
The power given to the decision-maker in a democracy is very great, and if he holds it for too long, he may lose proportions, and feel that "the state is me."
It was the British Lord Acton who coined the immortal saying that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Democratic leaders who have been in power for too long tend to identify the interests of the state with their own interests, hence the road to corruption is very short.
In the past decades, institutions such as the State Comptroller have been invented in front of them, in front of them are the parliament and the court and the critical media, and yet democratically elected leaders often succeed in weakening these factors, presenting their opponents as state opponents, claiming treason and being manipulated. Foreign elements plowing the evil of the state, and so on in those things.
The effort to limit the arbitrariness of the democratic leader has characterized the last 80 years, since democratic regimes fell one after another, and were replaced by one kind or another of tyranny.
Between 1992 and 2001, a Basic Law: The Government was implemented in Israel, in which the term of office of the Prime Minister was limited to eight years.
This is a reasonable period, during which a democratic prime minister is supposed to realize his vision and the vision of his party.
The welcome repeal of this law (known as the "Direct Election Law") brought with it the repeal of the priesthood restriction, and it is a pity.
The intention to reintroduce the restriction is part of the ongoing effort to ensure that in the face of the strengthening prime minister (following the National Security Council law, and following the appointments of many advisers who were not previously prime ministers, and who increased its power in various areas), , Even if in other parliamentary regimes such a restriction does not exist.
