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