The President of France, Charles de Gaulle, once asked, in a kind of humor spiced with humor, "How can a country with 246 types of cheese be ruled?"
Well, we in the country still do not have 246 types of cheese, but one can certainly ask how one can control a country where the electoral system allows each unique snowflake to claim the crown.
By the way, in the third republic of France, no less than 101 governments have been replaced in its 65 years of existence, that is, a change of government every 8 months on average.
Sound familiar?
Well, we're on our way there, thanks to a system - an electoral system or a system of government - that has now led us to the absurd situation with a six-seat party leader, who is breaking records of unpopularity and support.
The electoral system was bad long before the Bennett government, but today it can be said with certainty that without dramatic change, we will find ourselves in a political spin that will make us miss the 2021-2019 re-election campaigns.
Because the precedent set by Bennett will not remain a one-time event.
Any party leader - including those who have barely passed the blocking percentage - will be able to demand and receive the keys to the Prime Minister's Office, if he finds himself in the language of Libra.
Because if Bennett got it, why not him?
Let's go back in time a little, to 1948, to understand how we got here.
Following the declaration of independence, a committee was appointed to prepare for the first elections.
The committee assumed that the Constituent Assembly would enact a constitution that would determine the method of elections for the future to come, and therefore decided to temporarily leave in place the format of the relative elections, which was customary at Zionist congresses and assemblies of the Jewish community.
Since then, like everything in our country, the temporary system has remained intact.
And so we find ourselves, after 74 years of independence, with a lame, outdated and mostly electoral system that prevents a clear governmental sequence.
The failed election attempt on two ballots, which were supposed to prevent blackmail from small parties but did the opposite, taught us that this issue should be approached with caution.
But caution does not mean inaction.
If the legislature does not take it upon itself to discuss the options available to it, we will quarrel to the point of bloodshed and ballot papers.
Today there are several directions being examined, each separately but mostly all together: 1. Let the head of the largest party form a government;
2. Raise the blocking percentage so that only large parties can enter the Knesset, which will lead to the consolidation of lists;
To combine elections on a regional basis - with each region sending one candidate to parliament - and on a national basis, or alternatively to establish another house for parliament on the purity of the regional representatives, in order to strengthen the bond between the voters and their elected representatives;
4. Opening the possibility of conducting personal elections on Election Day so that along with the party note, the voter will select his or her candidates from the list.
Here, too, the goal is to increase the representativeness and influence of the voters, and on the other hand to strengthen the commitment of the elected representatives towards the voters.
There are of course many more optional directions, but the problem is that they are discussed solely in the academic ivory tower.
If we are objects of life, governmental continuity and stability, we must demand from our elected representatives to take the law into their own hands.
Literally.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
