What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Upcoming Israeli Elections

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
17,404
Reaction score
3,444
Points
290
But if the king will have the last word in forming the budget and deciding on taxes, all these parliament rights on tourism, infrastructure, health services will have little meaning.

Lower the electoral threshold? I thought Israel needs quite the opposite. To block minor parties getting in the parliament and dictating their demands.

That's a good point, I can see how a veto and a monarch associate with diminishing of representation and absolute power. It is true to abuse of power in every hierarchy,
whereas my point is introduction of the royal institute is a democratic process,
and the veto allows direct representation in legislation.

Spectrum and practical application

Let's examine the question on a spectrum, not as absolute terms,
there's mixture of nepotism and representation in every polity,
but to examine practical application -

Athens Direct Democracy - all policy is a referendum, on one end,
Tsarist Monarchy - ultimate nepotism by a reign of terror, as another extreme.

When measuring Representative Democracy on the spectrum, I see that result in practice is the worst of both extremes. As in what prof. Bin-Nun said, all Democracy is channeled into a choice of 1-3 individuals, to address a wide range of questions, and not being inquired about anything forth. While the representative You chose for the ultimate seat in the govt,
even if wanted, isn't allowed power to realize any long term policy by definition.

Therefore, and this is neither main nor the best reason for Parliamentary Monarchy,
but introducing the royal institute isn't change in citizen representation in the
government under Representative Democracy, effectively it's a diluted
Monarchy. However a Parliamentary Monarchy can practically allow
more elements of Direct Democracy.

Cantonization - local government

This is a move towards, integration of the Direct Democracy trajectory.
As states have district governments, in Israel the districts are the 12 tribal lots.
By giving more power to local governments without having a powerful authority,
introduces new levels to power struggle because the districts aren't self sufficient.

However by introducing elements of Direct Democracy on the district level,
not only each vote increases Democracy by 100% compared to now,
functionally citizenry serves as an advisory institute, a govt branch,
to ensure coordination in long term strategy, the very purpose of
the monarch in Parliamentary Monarchy.

With a powerful local government, direct participation,
there're also a lot more creative economic options between
the 12 districts and each their advantages for the long term policy.

Popular vote in the choice of the monarch

The very commandment to establish a monarchy is conditioned by the nation's judgement of monarchies being the most successful at the time, compared to other forms of government.
From the stand point of Hebrew court any rule has the general standing of a monarchy,
be it representative democracy or absolute monarchy. The generalization serves the
the purpose, at times when people prefer a monarchy, its a branch that forms and
integrates with a previously existing government, rather than replaces it,
into a dynamic structure.

With authority of the royal institute being itself result of democratic process,
each monarch also has to be literally chosen by the nation, even when
being the first in line to heir the throne, this is not to imply rebellion
and a ceremonial coronation being the extent of the choice; But a
political process in which the parliament acts as an intermediary
branch between the monarch and the local governments to
review policy both ways and from additional branches.

Rambam and legislative branches

Though being the ultimate Halachic source on the rules of the monarchy,
the tendency to immediately go towards the last part of Mishneh Torah,
along with the rules Sanhedrin can be misleading without being used
to Rambam's pedagogic method and terminology with reference
from previous volumes. But there's a principle regarding all rules
of Monarchy and the Temple, that is clear without much
explanation - the world functions normally.

This is not an ideology of 'one for all solution' to all political challenges,
that implies sharp reforms or even replacing the current structure,
rather a natural political process, function of public policy, similar
to formalizing Shabat with other holidays and Hebrew. Likely the
establishment of the Sanhedrin by parliamentary means,
confirms the authority of what the Hebrew court calls
the 'Takanat Kahal' in direct legislative process.

In that context addition branches can be established to separate the power,
and assign certain roles in addition to those currently functioning, as the
civil, high and Rabbinic courts, the Sanhedrin and a tribal council,
with the parliament functioning as the intermediary coordinator.

Between a President and a Monarch main difference
are length and stability possible in main authority,
while some diluted to mere ceremonial function,
as the Queen in Britain or the President in Israel.

I'm not saying it's a solution for every nation,
this is a transition I see clarifying in these
episodes of our frequent elections.

(QUESTION)

What do You prefer, the possibility to change a President every election,
or powerful local governments with direct votes on policy?

Propose better alternatives?
 
Last edited:

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
What do You prefer, the possibility to change a President every election,
or powerful local governments with direct votes on policy?

Propose better alternatives
The main question is how local governments will be elected. Representative democracy with say 5 years election cycle? Then this method will have the same flaws as other representative democracies.

I don't know what is better alternative. There is no ideal political system.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
17,404
Reaction score
3,444
Points
290
The main question is how local governments will be elected. Representative democracy with say 5 years election cycle? Then this method will have the same flaws as other representative democracies.

I don't know what is better alternative. There is no ideal political system.

Direct democracy even on district level alone outweighs the flaws of govt representation,
as the advantages of a monarch's veto outweigh the flaws of direct legislation.

When the solutions are a compromise, isn't a dynamic structure preferable?
 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,915
Reaction score
2,854
Points
280
I think the equation I'm drawing, makes the extent of authority
of every district government a function of direct citizen vote.

There's the CEO and there's the shareholder.
But CEO's can be fired by the shareholders.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
65,603
Reaction score
22,412
Points
2,250
The main question is how local governments will be elected. Representative democracy with say 5 years election cycle? Then this method will have the same flaws as other representative democracies.

I don't know what is better alternative. There is no ideal political system.
I like the Parliamentary System.
Our system sucks and it's also based on the popular vote but we can be stuck with a disaster for x number of years.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,915
Reaction score
2,854
Points
280
What I'm suggesting is Parliamentary Monarchy with direct democracy on district level,
making the citizen a shareholder with direct vote at least on the local policy,
and when practically possible the parliament as well.
There is no benefit to any kind of monarchy. If you want more stability in government, then the direct election of the PM will achieve that.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
65,603
Reaction score
22,412
Points
2,250
May the main reason for disaster be the
assumption of 8 years of accountability at most?
The main reason for disaster is due to the fact that 99% of people have no idea of the platform of the candidates.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,915
Reaction score
2,854
Points
280
When You choose a PM or a President, what then?
The benefit is allowing direct vote in legislation,
rather than a new photo

A PM or President is accountable to the people, but a monarch is not.
 

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,915
Reaction score
2,854
Points
280
Accountable exactly for what and how long?
Evert few years tge people get to review their choice of president or PM and decide if they still want him in office, but no one gets to review the work of a monarch and dismiss him if his performance is poor.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
17,404
Reaction score
3,444
Points
290
Evert few years tge people get to review their choice of president or PM and decide if they still want him in office, but no one gets to review the work of a monarch and dismiss him if his performance is poor.

Accountability isn't elections for 4-8 years. What happens when their performance is great,
and they've got more resource than anyone but must step down for no other reason?

More democracy in direct legislation under Parliamentary Monarchy,
than such accountability with a single vote in 4 years.
 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,915
Reaction score
2,854
Points
280
Accountability isn't elections for 4-8 years. What happens when their performance is great,
and they've got more resource than anyone but must step down for no other reason?

More democracy in direct legislation under Parliamentary Monarchy,
than such accountability with a single vote in 4 years.
If the PM or president is doing a great job, he or she can be elected for another term, but if he isn't performing up to expectations, he can be replaced with someone else. There is no democracy with a monarch because he cannot be replaced if he is performing poorly. Democracy means the demos, the people are in control of the government, but with a monarchy, the people are not in control. There are absolutely no advantages to having a monarchy.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
1,065
Points
140
I like the Parliamentary System.
Our system sucks and it's also based on the popular vote but we can be stuck with a disaster for x number of years.
The US lives in a constant election campaign. Presidential elections and general elections, then after 2 years midterms, then after 2 years general elections and so on.

Plus, a two-party system causes division in the society and that the two parties are in constant opposition to one another.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
17,404
Reaction score
3,444
Points
290
If the PM or president is doing a great job, he or she can be elected for another term, but if he isn't performing up to expectations, he can be replaced with someone else. There is no democracy with a monarch because he cannot be replaced if he is performing poorly. Democracy means the demos, the people are in control of the government, but with a monarchy, the people are not in control. There are absolutely no advantages to having a monarchy.
That sounds nice in theory, but once elections are the ultimate power struggle,
populism is much cheaper and effective than job results or even ideology.
However what You say about monarchy, may be correct in absolute
monarchy with a hereditary succession, which is neither the only
nor the most common form of monarchies today.

Do You know what is a Parliamentary Monarchy?

Because what You associate with Democracy is very similar.
People are the sovereign, and the monarch is bound by constitution.
Parliament is the legislative branch and PM is the main representative.
The main difference is that the elected monarch is held to a much higher
standard than any politician by law, and there's the option for longer service.

If there're 'absolutely no advantages' to Parliamentary Monarchy,
and You don't see any advantages in more Direct Democracy...
then why Parliamentary Monarchies today are among
the most prosperous nations?

In other words, when the President of Israel is elected in a similar way,
holds a similar representative role but with the royal title,
means less or more democracy?

 
Last edited:

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
17,404
Reaction score
3,444
Points
290

5 Elections, 3 Years: Inside Israel's Parliament

In the early days of establishment, the young Zionist leaders knew that building a consensus was crucial for building Israel. However, each representative debated over how to establish a governmental system...

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top