>> Read the full position paper in pdf
.
The gist of Zulat’s position is that the elections should be brought forward, precisely because of the cataclysmic trauma that has been rocking Israeli society ever since. With a prolonged national crisis under way, it is imperative that the people should be heard out on their choice of leadership to rebuild Israeli society and the country at large. The current government does not enjoy the people’s trust, and putting off elections hinders the citizens’ right to influence national priorities the day after.
Following are the main arguments cited in the paper:
- Importance of basic right to vote in democratic elections: Rule by the people is a basic premise of democracy, whereby the people choose their leaders and empower them to govern on their behalf and for their benefit. Free elections are the main mechanism at the people’s disposal to show their confidence in the leadership and to express their choice on how the country should be run.
. - Need of a decision by the people after a national crisis: The shocking events of 7 October have led all segments of Israeli society to realize unequivocally that what was is not what will be. The gap between the questions that Israeli society is called upon to deal with at this time and the issues that the November 2022 elections dealt with and the resulting leadership justifies advancing the elections to the earliest possible date.
. - Decisive impact on Israel’s future of the issues set before the leadership: The justification for bringing the elections forward is amplified by the fact that decisions made now are expected to have a long-term impact on Israel’s future. Therefore, it is imperative to go back to the Israeli people, introduce them to the various positions on the issues on the agenda, and allow them to express their choice by means of Knesset elections.
. - Precedents for holding elections during a crisis: The calamity of 7 October is unprecedented. Nevertheless, there have been quite a few cases in the past when Israel held elections during war or an emergency crisis. The paper includes several examples of elections being held or even brought forward during such times.
Insufficient justifications not to bring the elections forward: The arguments against calling an election are insufficient when weighed against their importance. For example, while the budgetary and economic costs of elections are significant, they are low compared to the economic ramifications of war; the limitations on the functioning of the transitional government are not dramatic and should be adopted anyway, guided by the principle that major policy decisions should be made after the leadership regains the people’s confidence; bringing the elections forward might indeed exacerbate the political polarization, yet such an exacerbation largely depends on the behavior of the political leadership, and what is more, Knesset elections are the main democratic mechanism for addressing such disagreements; advancing the elections might increase the politicization of government policy, but already now there is more than enough evidence of such politicization by the government.
In conclusion, Zulat‘s position is that the Knesset ought to announce its dispersal already now, with as broad a consensus as possible, elected officials thus assuming true responsibility for the debacle of 7 October. Choosing a leadership is a fundamental democratic right, whose realization is even more crucial after an unprecedented national calamity. To regain the people’s trust, elected officials must recognize that they and the policies they seek to promote need to undergo renewed scrutiny by the people.