Quote:
Originally Posted by CCIP
It's called a "plurality", not a majority.
To be fair, in systems like Israel's, real power rests with coalitions rather than individual parties, and if you look at actual results, I certainly do not see any sea change or mandate for a shift in values. Social moderate and economic liberal parties are the ones actually in majority. But many of them are willing to work with Likud on foreign policy, for instance.
Perhaps the real story of this election isn't about Netanyahu, but about how the hard left turn on the economy - that many expected, and not unlike one that the recent elections in Greece saw - didn't actually happen. That's the real story - and for many, a surprise, because it would've seemed obvious that the huge increases in the cost of living and deterioration in the job market and public services had to be foremost on the voters' minds. For one reason or another, I suppose that didn't turn the tide anyway. Otherwise, those on the American right are typically disappointed when they hold up Israel as some sort of model society of their dreams (conveniently promoted to them as such by conservative ideologues), only to discover that as politics, economics and public services go, it's about as secular, liberal, and pluralistic as states get. And I for one hope that it stays that way.
|
I concur with the above. Bibi (or BeBe, I never know which one is the official spelling) really has no individual hold on power. He and his party's policies, beliefs, and standards are not, and never really have been, wholeheartedly embraced, by the Israeli population, in general. Now he is going to have to scrape and wheel and deal to form any semblance of a stable government...
My bicker over the term "majority" is how it is used as a sort of public relations gimmick to give the impression there is very much more public support for a candidate, party, or policies than actually exists. I find much the same holds for the term "mandate". The last time it was used in US presidential was in 2004 when the GOP claimed the election results confirmed a "mandate" from the US voters for GOP policies, in spite of the fact GW Bush only garnered 50.7% of the total vote. Again, hardly a rousing victory, but rather better the Bush's 47.9% in the 2000 election. It seems "majority" and "mandate" are somewhat, shall we say, "fungible"?...
<O>