Love of the Land: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Yoram Ettinger
The Ettinger Report
11 December 09

A special-majority referendum constitutes an acceptable procedure in Western democracies, when faced with exceptional – and sometimes irreversible – decisions, such as territorial concessions in the Golan Heights and in Judea and Samaria.

Contrary to opponents of a special-majority referendum - as a prerequisite for territorial concessions – such a procedure protects individual rights, national security and democracy, which are threatened by hasty decisions made under the influence of domestic and international pressure, impacted by exceptionally emotional developments and supported by a slim, tenuous majority, which could be transformed summarily into a minority. Special-majority referendums check an imperial executive branch of government, which wishes to dominate the legislature and to ignore public opinion.

For example, the "Evian Accords" which led to France's withdrawal from Algeria, were approved by two referendums in April and June 1962. President de Gaulle, who initiated the withdrawal, insisted that such an exceptional decision required a special majority, in order to prevent an internal rupture. De Gaulle insisted that a regular-majority could represent a minority of eligible voters, forge a sizeable disgruntled opposition and cause a collapse of democracy.

Charles de Gaulle understood the threat to democracy – under exceptional circumstances – if the special-majority referendum was dismissed. In 1946, the 53% majority which approved the constitution of the Fourth French Republic amounted to a mere 36% minority of eligible voters. Under such results, France deteriorated to the verge of a civil war in 1958.

(Continue article)

Related: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law, Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Love of the Land: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Weekly Commentary
Dr. Aaron Lerner
www.imra.org.il
10 December 09

Media coverage of the proposed law requiring a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory has for the most part ignored the potentially critical Subparagraph 3A.

Here is a rough translation:

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), if the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for "acting
responsibly".

OK.

So let's assume for a moment that a newly elected Government brought to power because it opposed the agreement the previous Government reached would actually honor and respect its mandate and vote to cancel the deal.

What does the country gain by requiring a cabinet vote?

Let's think this through:

By definition we would have a new prime minister heading a ruling coalition that defeated the previous coalition that supported the deal.

So which scenario would better serve Israel's interests?

That the new prime minister can tell the world that his "hands are tied" by the outcome of the referendum and the deal is off?

Or

That the new prime minister has to raise his own hand to cancel an agreement that, no doubt, enjoyed the backing of the United States and other important countries?

That's a no brainer.

Here's an idea.

Instead of dropping the referendum in the instance that there are elections, why not have citizens cast their ballots in the referendum at the same as they vote in the Knesset elections?

Related: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Love of the Land: Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
09 December 09

While most discussions of the proposed referendum law relate to its being applied to the case of a deal involving the Golan or Jerusalem, the law also would apply to border adjustments - no matter how small - as long as they entail transferring sovereign Israeli territory.

While the proposed law requires a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory, the referendum would not be required if elections are held.

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for acting responsibly".

Love of the Land: Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
11 November 09

(The original posting was "Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing...". Click here to read.)

So far from the responses it is clear that withdrawal proponents are unable to address the underlying observation that there is a defect in the democratic system if politicians can take a move that permanently changes the situation in a profound way that is in gross contradiction of a specific and explicit campaign promise and that a device is required to address this problem.

[To argue that the fact that Israel retook land in a war hardly serves as comforting evidence that withdrawals are reversible should the Israeli public object to a withdrawal that Israeli politicians agreed to in defiance of their mandate.

As for the impact of settlement activity - it didn't stop PM Olmert from negotiating and presenting a radically generous offer to Mahmoud Abbas - Abbas was the problem. And by the same token it can be argued that settlement activity puts pressure on the Palestinians to talk because time is not necessarily on their side. But, again, the underlying observation is that settlement construction is not subject to the same reversibility issue as withdrawals in diplomatic agreements.]

The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal.

The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored.

This tremendous fear of a national referendum on the part of withdrawal proponents only serves to indicate that they lack confidence in their ability to convince the public to support their program.

That's their problem.

I would note, by the way, that the Palestinians say that they will present any deal for approval in a national referendum.

As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights.

I live in Israel for many reasons (I live in Raanana which is a fantastic place so you won't find me claiming it is a sacrifice - though it certainly is the case that our family has sacrificed many years in army service) and one of them is to actively participate in the history of the country. And one the key ways that I participate in the history of the country is by voting in elections. Sometimes I "win" in the elections and sometimes I "lose". But that's the way democracy works. Adding a national referendum is a device to insure I have a say when politicians decide to defy their mandate.

And if I lose?

I won't pack my bags.

We don't rent. We own.

Back when PM Sharon, certain he would win a Likud referendum on the retreat from Gaza (he argued that there wasn't time for a national referendum), approved the vote, I was - as many others - on record that we would accept the outcome, regardless of which way it fell.

I participated in what was an exciting exercise in democracy, with people going door-to-door arguing their case.

And to PM Sharon's shock, he lost the referendum.

And he then ignored the outcome and continued on his way.

A low point for Israeli democracy.

Again. I understand and appreciate that it is hardly a foregone conclusion that my position will win the day at the ballot box.

And I accept that.

But as a voting Israeli citizen I want my fair chance to participate.

[PS: It turns out that Noam Shelef sent me a note via Twitter to alert me to his comment. While I send material out via Twitter I don't check it myself, hence the incorrect comment that he did not alert me to his comment.]

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
07 November 09

Noam Shelef issued an offer to me on the Peace Now website that I endorse requiring a national referendum to approve settlement construction as well as agreements that involve territorial concessions.

[He offered it on the website (click here) - but didn't actually send me a message with the offer - but thanks to Google Alert I received the item in my e-mail mailbox. But that's not the point of this note.]

There is a fundamental difference between settlement construction and territorial concessions Israel makes in diplomatic agreements and implements.

Reversibility.

As was well illustrated in the retreat from Gaza and destruction of settlements in northern Samaria under the Sharon Administration, settlements can be unilaterally removed by Israel without requiring either the cooperation or approval of third parties..

In sharp contrast, Israel cannot unilaterally retake territory it ceded to another country without profound diplomatic and other consequences.

So a politician who betrayed his constituents by promising them to, for example, keep the Golan, in order to get elected and then cut a deal to hand it over to Syria might very well get the boot come election time - but the Syrian would still have the Golan.

This fundamental difference was recognized in the Oslo agreements. Changing the status of territory was banned - not settlement construction.

Article XXXI Paragraph 7 of the Interim Agreement: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."The meaning of "status" means "legal status". A violation of the agreement would take place if Israel annexed part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip orthe PA declared an independent state in the area before the negotiations were concluded. Israeli settlement activity is no more a violation of theAgreement than Palestinian construction.

This is not just an Israeli interpretation.

"the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the settlement machine"

That's straight from "The political agenda of the national liberation movement Palestinian "Fatah" Submitted to the Sixth Conference of the Movement " June 28, 2009 Draft. www.fatehconf.ps/pdfs/fatehpolitical.pdf

Related: Powerful Need for National Referendums

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Yossi Beilin unintentionally brings powerful argument for national referendums

Weekly Commentary: Yossi Beilin unintentionally brings powerful argument for national referendums

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
05 November 09

"If you are in power with the responsibility for the future of the People on your shoulders and if you are convinced that it is the correct path don't hesitate. Don't knowingly make the wrong decision only because you found yourself saying something in the heat of the election campaign. In any case in the next elections you will face the judgment of the public. There will be those who won't vote for you because you were ostensibly disloyal, and there will be those who will vote for you because of your wisdom and courage."
Yossi Beilin - column in Yisrael Hayom - 2 November 2009

The purpose of the democratic process is to enable the electorate to impact policy.

Yossi Beilin's view of the democratic process is that politicians should have no qualms getting elected on one platform and implementing another - so long as they are willing to risk getting the boot.

Beilin unintentionally presents a powerful argument for the need for national referendums to approve agreements involving territorial concessions.

That's the only way to insure that the public's will is ultimately honored.

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Yossi Beilin unintentionally brings powerful argument for national referendums