He has the rare skill of being able to succinctly express the nuances of some of the more intricate aspects of the political culture in Israel. As a lawyer who has a deep interest in politics, I found it interesting to learn that in Israel cabinet ministers who come from parties other than the leader of the coalition essentially have complete autonomy over their portfolio. As part of their agreeing to join in the governing coalition, they get control over one or more portfolio's such as finance, education, or religious affairs. This left me wondering about external facing portfolio's such as foreign affairs - surely the foreign minister can't have complete autonomy there!
I asked Professor Hazan about this, asking who has legal authority in Israel to bind the country to an international convention or a peace treaty. He told me that the PM and the foreign minister both have the authority to do so, but in practice things of the highest national importance such as peace treaties are decided upon at the cabinet level. Additionally, in the case of the peace treaty Begin made with Egypt, the cabinet decision was brought to the greater parliament, although this was only done once the PM knew acceptance was a foregone conclusion.
However, despite the above the foreign minister has the autonomy to pretty much say whatever they want. This was how we found ourselves in the situation where the foreign minister made a speech while Joe Biden was in Israel that contradicted a speech given by Netanyahu, the PM, only a couple days earlier. I don't recall news outlets pointing out that the PM had little power to control his foreign minister's words.
Coming from Canada this fascinated me, as I am more used to the Canadian and American models, where cabinet ministers tend to have little leash in their public comments. This is particularly the case in Canada, where many people view cabinet minister's as an extension of the Prime Minister, and they cannot stray from the party line in public.
He also spoke at length about the social protests currently under way in Israel. Virtually overnight tent cities sprouted up in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. People are upset about the spiralling cost of living in Israel, and want the government to do something about it. Several times a week Professor Hazan walks amongst the tents and talks to the young protestors - some of whom are his former students. Sadly, a number of people whom he spoke to hadn't voted in the previous election, yet at the same time they committed hours, or even days to the current protest!
One reason the protestors have garnered such wide spread support in the 85% range has been their decision to be apolitical. Even members of the governing Likkud party, which is right of centre, support them. The professor talked to us how security often trumps economic and social issues at the polls, but that he sees this as an incredible opportunity for a re-alignment in Israeli politics, where social issues could potentially become more important. However, for that to happen the protestors will have to get political, which essentially means creating their own party in the hopes of leaching votes from people that have socially liberal values, but have voted for hawkish parties in recent elections. Unfortunately the protestors have failed to heed the Professor's advice. I happen to agree with him.
If they maintain the status quo nothing will chance in a substantive manner. However, if they get political, they will have actual power to enact change. Even getting 10 seats out of 120 could garner a cabinet position and the autonomy/power that entails on "their" issues. Better to have support of 30% of the population and a seat at the table than support of 85% of the population but no seat. Hopefully some of them will stumble across this post before the next election :)
No comments:
Post a Comment