For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, the upcoming elections will be held under a regime that is not democratic but rather a competitive authoritarian one. A common practice in such regimes is not to cancel elections altogether but to disrupt them – the systematic undermining of fair competition long before Election Day itself. This report provides an extensive survey of the tools available to Netanyahu’s government for disrupting the elections: some of the tools mentioned in it are based on actions the government has already taken over the past three years, from which its modus operandi can be inferred; others are an assessment of possible actions ahead of the elections, based on tactics used by similar competitive authoritarian regimes.
Among the tools detailed in the document are the politicization of the police and the selective use of enforcement against the opposition; the misuse of powers, including those of the Shin Bet, for purposes of deterrence and surveillance; the weakening of the judicial system and of the Attorney General in a manner that reduces oversight of the government; as well as the mobilization of state resources and the civil service for the benefit of a political campaign. Alongside this, the document emphasizes the role of the media and social networks in spreading disinformation and skewing public discourse, as well as the risk posed by the use of political violence – both institutional and non-institutional – as a means of deterring voters and activists, particularly within the Arab public.
The upcoming elections will be more crucial than ever, and their importance for the democratic future of the State of Israel is critical. Competitive authoritarian regimes act systematically to instill a sense of danger and to mark out enemies, and they do so all the more intensely when the future of the regime is being tested at the ballot box. In Israel, there is an additional concern about the use of security justifications to silence and suppress civic activity, as well as the possibility of preserving or creating a state of war in order to avoid holding elections. Therefore, preventing election disruption requires more heightened vigilance than in the past from the media, the civil service, and civil society organizations – and from the public at large.
