Q & As for Democracy

Thinking about democracy as destined for self-destruction, and convinced, theoretically, that it’s sustainable, I hope it’s restored at the end of cycles of adjusting the scales. Pollsters conduct public surveys. Despite repeated lack of survey accuracy when we see election results, we want to presume polls reflect public opinion on other issues – if it serves our purposes. Wondering what we can reasonably expect from leaders and constituencies representing a minority view.

Since everything has to do with the war, this does too. Judicial reform, as it was called by the government of Israel, since it initiated bold steps in that direction two years ago, met with immediate massive, though partial public protest. This was followed by defense institutions warning of vulnerability to attack inseparable from the divisive implications of the proposed reform that would generate imbalances between three branches of government. Weekly massive public protests ensued. Political preoccupation with reform, indifferent to societal polarization diverted attention from security threats. Politicians were blinded as vulnerability escalated, signaling a time for enemies to attack.

The Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023, then diverted attention to retaliation. Hollow slogans about unity were spread over billboards. Yet the Prime Minister failed to take any responsibility for the circumstances, for the fact that it happened – behavior unprecedented in other wars and by his predecessors. War continues.

Public demonstrations for release of the hostages. Gradual surfacing of overt political objections to efforts for their release in the name of other interests, more highly prioritized. Strategic? You try to consider rationally. Until politicians make heartless statements.

Another month, another year, one young man taken hostage at age 19 turns 21 in captivity. Speculations about Hamas treatment of women hostages.

Another hospital in Gaza incapacitated. Israeli media outlets provide reports conflicting with foreign media reports about the nuances, the circumstances.

One news source reports Israel’s unwillingness to accept a Hamas proposal to end the war. Hamas in Gaza consents to cooperation with PLO leadership in the West Bank. Israel supposedly had been willing to allow, enable, sole PLO leadership. Negotiation is compromise. But Israel refuses to accept this compromise. Hamas will still dominate. Israel is not convinced of good intentions, of Hamas commitment to ending the war.

Credibility of stated intentions of the government of Israel have become questionable too. That may be reason not to believe Hamas leaders either. The imminent termination date of the ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon is a distraction. IDF identification of almost nightly attacks by the Houthis in Yemen results in activating sirens waking millions of Israelis before dawn. Among those millions of Israelis running to our warm, safe room on a rainy winter night, I thought of Gazan children unprotected, hungry, wrapped in rain-soaked blankets. Easy to say Gazans could reject Hamas and find protection in safer hands, but however we judge their circumstances, children remain victims – and Israel is a perpetrator even if we blame Hamas. And Israel is responsible for traumatization of Palestinians residing in the West Bank, even if Israel has legitimate concerns regarding actions and intentions of some such residents.

No details here. Keeping my descriptions sterile, covered by gauze pads woven loosely enough for visibility if you squint.

Another Israeli television panel of commentators and analysts broadcasts yet another insight on democracy. A presumption made left me with a question.

An elected official, MK and minister in the government, part of a coalition advocates for policies on the platform he brought to his voters and to the coalition. The coalition embraces a gamut of opinions, with politicians representing the people, true to form for democratic republics.

To sustain coalitions, politicians make compromises – disappointing their voters. Voters vote knowing pre-election promises will be broken for a greater public good, and hope elected officials see the public good. Often politicians appear to be swayed by personal political interests, clinging to seats in corrupt coalitions with no reverence for the public good. Democracy is probably at a loss to distinguish between politicians’ understanding of the public good and the capacity of the public to determine its best interests.

Given a poll showing a decided preference of the public for ensuring the return of the hostages, or for refraining from pursuing judicial reform – not a close race and similar poll results recur day after day – and given that the public preference runs contrary to the agenda of an elected minister in the government, is it the minister’s job to act on the will of the majority of the people in a nominally democratic regime, or is it the minister’s job to promote the agenda by which he was elected? The ministers in this government have made their answer clear. The panelist made his answer clear, without asking the question. Does democracy have an answer?

Harriet Gimpel, January 4, 2025