Two days after February 14, 1949, the day the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly took place, it was decided that the Israeli Legislature would be called the "Knesset" and that every Tu B'Shvat would mark not only "the Feast of the Trees" but also the birthday of the Hebrew Parliament. True to the party: The Knesset was the abode of essential parliamentarism. Citizens who wanted to shape the fate of the nation knew their destiny was the Knesset. Members of the Knesset were writers and activists, poets and farmers, intellectuals and labor leaders, - Everyone got up in the morning to engage in promoting values.
In recent years, the Knesset has become a space whose value component - focusing on the work of legislation and policy-making - is introduced into players from outside fields. Members of the Knesset accept these "ready-made." Even a basic law like the "Nationality Law" was passed to right-wing parties by the Ecclesiastical Forum, the Begin Institute for Law and Zionism, and the Center for Zionist Strategy. Almost every association in civil society ("Kav LaOved", "Women's Lobby" - the list is endless) has a legislative department that submits perfect bills to members of the Knesset, and these, usually without changing a single letter, advance them to a vote. What are the MKs doing in the plenum? After all, it is always an "immediate election", no? And who has time to legislate at all?
The public agenda raises from time to time High Court rulings that "dare" to interfere in public policy. Kim is carried out by an equally elitist arena - civil society - which produces an agenda for MKs? Which determines which problems will become social and receive parliamentary treatment, while which will remain transparent and the Knesset will not "see" them at all?
The Knesset's 73rd birthday is a sad day.
This is a Knesset with no exceptions - its members are in a constant campaign.
Their time is hardly devoted to dealing with the essence.
When it comes to the national, social and value agendas they promote - they are completely dependent on extra-parliamentary actors.
The public is not aware that the Knesset member he elects is not significant in itself, but the associations that will influence him along the way - and that the way to influence is not to "reach" the Knesset but to establish a third sector organization that will shape the agenda.
It is possible that in another constitutional situation, in which new elections could not be held in the morning, MKs could also turn to substantive parliamentarism, and return to the Knesset the status it deserves. Values.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
