The Israel Parliament gave final approval today to a bill which will keep unimpaired the present proportional representation system of election of Knesset deputies. The action came after two lengthy sessions last night and this morning which saw the defeat of Mapai and General Zionist proposals for reforming Israel’s electoral set-up and bringing it closer toward the American two-party form.
The final vote was unanimous–96 for, none against and no abstentions. This despite the strongest Mapai pleas for a direct representation system. Just before the final vote the Mapai deputies caucused and decided, by a one vote majority, to vote for the measure because the party favored most of the provisions of the electoral reform law.
The first vote last night came on a Mapai-sponsored plan to divide the country into 120 local constituencies with each unit sending a deputy to Knesset on the basis of majority vote in the district. At present, parties electioneer on a nation-wide basis and deputies are chosen on the basis of proportional representation. That proposal was beaten down 73 to 42.
The General Zionists then proposed a plan to set up 30 districts with three deputies to be elected from each unit and the remaining 30 seats to be allocated on a proportional basis among those parties receiving a minimum total vote. This was rejected by the tense deputies, 103 to 12.
The Mapai then offered an alternative motion for a change in the electoral system but leaving details to be worked out later. This motion was rejected by a 73 to 42 vote.
All parties had recalled deputies from visits abroad for the crucial meeting and only five of the 120 deputies were absent. One of the unusual scenes in the struggle- in which most of Israel’s ten parties faced the possibility of loss of identity in the defeated reform proposals–was a show of hands by all non-Mapai party members at the Cabinet table against each of the three proposals.
The Prime Minister, who has been campaigning for a two-party system for years, put up a powerful battle. However, all deputies, with the exception of those of Mapai and the General Zionists, ignored his warning that there was no electoral system more likely “to undermine democracy and leave it a prey to destructive total Italian forces” than Israel’s present proportional representation system.
RABBIS, ARMY OFFICERS BANNED FROM CANDIDACY FOR PARLIAMENT
Premier Ben Gurion argued vigorously that the only truly democratic method was one giving each citizen the right to choose his specific representative, and that “it is no accident that only countries with proportional representation have fallen under the sway of totalitarian regimes of the right or left.” He charged that the only party which was sincerely interested in continuation of the existing method was the Communist Party which needs a broken, fragmented helpless democracy easy to overcome and liquidate when the time comes.”
In the early hours this morning the Mapai suffered several other setbacks as parties crossed coalition lines and formed temporary alliances to defeat one or another electoral reform amendments. The most severe blow came on a proposal by the United Religious Party, a coalition member, which asked that the electoral system be changed only by a constitutional majority rather than by a majority of the deputies present and voting. Despite a hard fight by the Labor Party this was carried, 56-54.
When the Mapai sat back as an amendment was pushed through the House–46, 27–banning rabbis and other clergymen from candidacy for the Knesset, the United Religious Party joined the Herut and other groups to band from Parliament senior army officers or senior public officials. This blow, aimed directly at the Mapai, was passed 48-30. The deputies then swung the meat axe on proposals to set up a second legislative chamber and to establish a legislative body to review Parliamentary election results.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
