Universal Suffrage to Govern a Country?

Is Universal Suffrage the Best Way to Govern a Country?

Democracy is undergoing a profound crisis and appears to be on the verge of collapse. In Israel and other developed countries, it has shifted from an effective model of governance to an urgent and troubling issue. Make no mistake: democracy has been one of humanity’s greatest achievements. We grew up within it, sanctified it, and took pride in its contribution to human progress. We studied Athenian democracy and the principles of the French Revolution, fervently embraced the ideals of the separation of powers, individual freedom, and equality before the law. But today, a sobering realization emerges: the solution is not to restore authoritarian regimes, as the opposite of democracy is not necessarily dictatorship. The real issue lies elsewhere—it is time to rethink the very nature of democracy.

A conference on democracy organized by Haaretz raised a fundamental question: should some principles once considered untouchable be reassessed because they have become outdated in our time? Over the years, democracy has revealed its limitations. If a Donald Trump or a Benjamin Netanyahu are products of a democratic process, does this not call into question the validity of the model itself? There is no need to mention authoritarian regimes that came to power through democratic elections. Despite its historical successes, democracy is now in decline, to the point where unscrupulous leaders can manipulate it to cultivate demagogic populism, sway public opinion, and consolidate their legitimacy.

The rise of democratized knowledge has led to a profound upheaval whose full extent we have yet to grasp. The spread of information and media transparency have given rise to an unprecedented social phenomenon—a genuine “revolt of the plebeians” against intellectual elites. At first glance, this may seem like a desirable emancipation of marginalized popular classes, who finally gain a voice and platforms for expression. But in reality, the rise of the internet and information networks has revolutionized social relations. What could have been a democratic advancement has instead become a formidable weapon for unscrupulous politicians who exploit its flaws to their advantage.

In today’s political landscape, traditional ideological divides have disintegrated. There are no longer clearly defined philosophical camps or opposing grand visions. Issues such as peace and economics have been pushed into the background, and politics has become a mere power struggle among individuals adept at winning over voters. Universal suffrage is now guided less by rational thought than by communal and emotional affiliation. Voters perceive themselves either as part of the plebeian world or as members of an elite. The result is clear: universal suffrage no longer reflects rational will but an identity-based reflex. Social networks have replaced ideological debates with a perpetual spectacle, where visual and emotional propaganda triumphs over analysis and nuance.

Voting, once seen as an enlightened civic act, is now driven by sectarian and partisan considerations. It is no longer a structured political choice but an electoral market where candidates are marketed like consumer products. The image of a candidate has become a decisive factor, appealing more to emotions than to reason. Can we truly claim that this system serves the common good? What does any of this have to do with public interest? Have democratic elections not become a collective illusion—a ritual we uphold without questioning its meaning? Is this really how we should determine a country’s future?

Another widely accepted myth is the notion that voting is a civic duty. Refusing to vote is often stigmatized as an act of bad citizenship. However, in reality, not voting primarily means renouncing the interests of one’s own group. Does this sacralization of voting still make sense? Should we really encourage millions of citizens to weigh in on complex issues such as education, healthcare, environmental policy, and economics when they lack the necessary knowledge or understanding of their implications? Should a political party that exists solely to defend clientelist interests have the power to influence the entire public sphere? Should a community that rejects democratic principles have a say in the future of the regime? Should millions of voters who decide based on irrational factors be allowed to determine a country’s future? At a time when political decisions are often guided by emotions and beliefs rather than reason, should we not restore the importance of professional expertise and competence?

Primaries, once considered a democratic breakthrough, have quickly revealed their flaws. Designed theoretically to empower citizens, they have become a playing field for the wealthiest and the most skilled in communication strategies. Those with substantial financial resources and the ability to fund costly media campaigns significantly increase their chances of winning. The decision-making centers of political parties have become mere electoral machines where blackmail and clientelism dictate the rules of the game. Candidates who expend their energy and fortune on personal promises to voters gain more support. Those who offer illicit favors to their electorate gain an advantage. Thus, party decision-making centers have become tools for securing public positions in exchange for electoral backing. The candidate becomes a hostage to the particular demands of their voters, sacrificing the general interest for specific claims. The slogan advocating for stronger ties between elected officials and their electorate actually conceals a submission to private interests at the expense of the common good. Is this truly the profile of a leader society needs?

The right to run for office stipulates that any citizen aged 18 and over can be elected to the Knesset. However, in any public institution, competence and experience are required. Why should access to power be exempt from this fundamental rule? Why entrust the management of a country to individuals without the necessary training or qualifications? Should democracy really deprive itself of its most brilliant minds in the name of egalitarianism? Should we not, on the contrary, encourage competent individuals to play an active role in shaping our future?

The shortcomings of democracy are not unique to Israel; they are a global phenomenon. This is not merely a local dysfunction but a worldwide challenge that demands new solutions. Outdated slogans will no longer suffice. After several chaotic elections in Israel, it is time to stop treating democratic failures as inevitable. The model of universal suffrage deserves bold reconsideration. Our world is evolving faster than our ability to comprehend and adapt to it. This reality extends beyond democracy and affects multiple aspects of society. National security is in the hands of institutions that are too powerful and rigid to adapt to major transformations. Academia suffers from intellectual dogmatism and has yet to integrate the knowledge revolution that has surpassed it. As a result, public debate remains trapped within obsolete dogmas. It is time to challenge these “sacred cows” that constrain our thinking and hinder our future.

Published in Haaretz March 19, 2021

Yigal Bin-Nun is a historian and author of A Brief History of Yahweh (Resling).