Israel Needs Devolution

Israel’s national elections are behind us – and so are the US midterm elections. There’s a connection here, but not the one people are talking about (“will the Democrat majority turn against Israel?”). Rather, Israel can learn a thing or two from the American system of government.

Whatever Israel’s ultimate coalition outcome, one thing is clear: for many domestic issues, the system is not working. As I pointed out here last month, the national security issue is so overwhelming that the central government – as well as many citizens – find it hard to focus on anything else.

What’s the solution? Devolution.

This essentially means moving decision-making down to the municipal level and having the mayors and city councils deal with all areas of life that don’t really need policymaking to be made at the national level. This includes (not a comprehensive list): education, culture, policing, religious affairs, parks & recreation, sports, etc. Some of these already have some form of local autonomy, but not wide enough nor do they include other fields.

Why is Israel so centralized? A counterexample is illustrative. Here the United States (think of that name’s second word) basically came into being only when enough “localities” (Colonies) agreed to form a national government. That’s why (one example among many) 95% of all police personnel in America work for the state or local municipality. The nation’s FBI might get most of the media’s attention, but almost all the grunt work occurs far lower down the political totem pole.

Israel, on the other hand, emerged out of central institutions (e.g., World Zionist Organization; Histadrut Labor Union) without which nation-formation could not have occurred within the British Mandate, not to mention defending against the five-nation Arab attack upon Israel declaring independence. In any case, the local population numbers in almost all of Israel’s early cities were too small to sustain any meaningful political life.

That has changed drastically today with 20 cities over 100,000 residents each, here in descending population order: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, Petach Tikva, Ashdod, Netanya, Beersheva, Bnei Brak, Holon, Ramat Gan, Ashkelon, Rehovot, Bat Yam, Beit Shemesh, Herzliya, Hadera, Lod, Modiin-Maccabim-Reut, Kfar Saba.

More to the point is the fact that despite some mayors having been convicted for corruption (not much different from the national level), the number of non-corrupt mayors who continued to be elected to several terms of office is truly impressive. Some are well known (even overseas), others were/are heroes mainly to their local constituents. Every one of these mayors served for a very long time in office (this list includes only cities, not towns or regional councils): Avraham Krinitzi (44 years!!) in Ramat Gan; Zvi Zilker (33 years) in Ashdod; Motti Sasson (31 years) in Holon; Teddy Kollek (28 years) in Jerusalem; Israel Rokach (17 years), Shlomo Lahat (19 years) and Ron Huldai (28 years and counting!) in Tel Aviv; Miriam Feirberg (27 years) in Netanya; Meir Nitzan (25 years) in Rishon LeZion; Chaim Bibas in Modiin (18 years, still in office); Aryeh Gur’el (17 years) and Aba Khoushy (18 years) in Haifa; Ruvik Danilovich (17 years, still in office) in Beersheva.

What explains such political longevity in a country that “eats” its politicians alive? First, physical acquaintance. Most of these mayors made it a regular practice to “walk the walk”: get out into the street, meet the public, and hear what they had to say. Even if such un/solicited “advice” isn’t practicable, the mere fact that the voters have a leader’s “ear” has a tremendous, positive, psychological effect on their trust in local government. Moreover, at the municipal level, it is clear who is responsible for the city’s good and bad aspects; electoral reward or punishment becomes pretty straightforward in return. In short, direct civic accountability is unavoidable for the mayor – a strong incentive to do the best for the citizenry.

Interestingly, one of the most centralized democracies in the world (Great Britain) just placed a very successful mayor in the prime minister’s office: Andy Burnham, former mayor of Manchester. His stated operating principle as PM? “Devolving by default”: more fiscal autonomy to localities, along with greater local control over public infrastructure and services.

To be sure, none of this undercuts central government power. Indeed, due to natural inequalities between cities resulting from their different socio-demographic makeup, national funding is required to ensure that weaker municipalities don’t start the devolution process with one hand fiscally tied behind their back. Kiryat Shmona and Tel Aviv are not the same; some differentiation in central government financial support is needed – but as transparently as possible with specific guidelines for who gets more for what.

Devolution isn’t revolution; it’s political evolution. But like every other “organism,” structural change in politics is a fact of life. Indeed, one can even argue that “competition” between municipalities can serve a giant political laboratory for what works better. Israel is a world leader in hi-tech; there’s no reason that it can’t also show the way forward in political reform as well.

Some final food for thought: The world’s first bona fide democracy was in Athens, a city-state. Fully nation-wide democracies were not to be found until the early modern period. Obviously, modern nations do need a central government, but the complexity of the contemporary world necessitates its obtaining all the help it can get. That’s to be found at the more human-scale, municipal level. It’s time for the Israeli political system to start devolving many of its functions downwards – a sort of “back to the future.”