The Middle East’s only democracy is beginning to erode. Israel, although a flawed democracy, has maintained the sole title of democracy in the Middle East, which is overrun by authoritarian regimes and instability. However, throughout the past few years especially, certain leaders have chipped away at the core of Israeli democracy.
With the Israel-Palestine conflict put aside, Israel has its own internal factors that weaken it’s democratic legitimacy. Many of the grievances against Israel can be attributed to it’s past prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Not only is Netanyahu a staunch populist, but he was also indicted with corruption, charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. His rhetoric contributes to Israel’s growing polarization, increasing cleavages between different groups. While the future is not so bleak for Israel, as it still maintains many democratic elements and Netanyahu is no longer in power, his leadership revealed how fragile it’s democracy really is.
One of Netanyahu’s ploys to gain an influence was through the exclusion of certain groups, an indicator of democratic erosion. Through his speech and rhetoric, he alienated Israel’s minorities by indicating that Israel is solely a Jewish state. He made no effort to distinguish Israeliness and Jewishness, which excludes Israel’s other citizens.
Although Israel is itself a Jewish country, it is still home to many different religious and ethnic groups. After all, Jerusalem is the religious center of the world. Israeli-Arabs make up one-fifth of Israel’s population and have the same citizenship as Israeli-Jews. However, Netanyahu conveyed his skepticism towards Arab citizens in particular, using heavy sentiments to mobilize his constituents.
In a Facebook post, Netanhayhu’s party stated that “the Arabs want to annihilate us all — women, children, and men.” Trying to gain support of his Jewish audience, Netanyahu sought to alienate Arabs from the majority Jewish citizens. In the state of Israel especially, this language is not to be taken lightly, as many of the ethnic groups residing in Israel have historically faced their own form of persecution in one way or the other.
Netanyahu’s administration went so far as to pass the Nation-State Law, which defines Israel’s specific position as a Jewish state. Although Israel was created as a safe state for the Jewish people, this law excludes Arabs, implying that they are to be categorized as second-class citizens. Not only does this law further fuel anti-Arab sentiments, but it’s language subordinates the Arab minority to the Jewish majority.
Netanyahu took his sentiments even further. When it came time to head to the polls, he made several remarks indicating that he did not trust Arabs to vote. He warned that Arab voters were heading to the polls in “droves” and stated that there should be cameras installed in polling locations out of distrust for Arabs.
Remarks like these are dangerous. Israel was created as a safe place for Jewish people, as they received similar alienation throughout much of Europe in addition to the Holocaust. Israel is supposed to be a safe-haven, and this should not only be limited to Jewish residents, but all of its citizens, Arabs included.
An additional indicator of Israel’s democratic erosion is the corruption in Netanyahu’s administration. In 2019, Netanyahu was indicted on several corruption charges, all of which he failed to take ownership for. In fact, he misplaced blame, calling these charges a “failed coup attempt.”
Instead of responding with accountability, Netanyahu placed blame on his prosecutors and the entire legal system. He refused to accept the charges placed against him and used his polarizing rhetoric to try to gain an advantage. His lack of accountability is a factor that makes him so dangerous.
Although a new administration has since taken place and there is hope for the future, Netanyahu’s administration certainly did damage to Israel’s democracy. Netanyahu is no doubt a populist leader — his rhetoric left lasting impacts on his constituents, and he made remarks with such fervor and determination that it actually widened cleavages in Israel.
However, society didn’t shy away from voicing their dissent towards Netanyahu, a strengthening feature of Israel’s democracy. In response to his mismanagement of the pandemic, as Israel’s reopening of the economy led to an increase in cases, and in addition to pleading for his resignation, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets in demonstration. These protestors, however, were met with force and many faced violent responses.
Israel still has a pretty strong democracy, don’t get me wrong. It likely won’t crumble entirely, as it still has many democratic elements and it is optimistic that Netanyahu was actually indicted of his corruption charges. Israel continues to have free and fair elections and there was a peaceful transition of power to the next administration. It still has a strong civil society, with citizens making their voices heard.
However, Israel’s democracy is so important to preserve that it can’t afford to weaken any more. It is geographically surrounded with outside threats to it’s democratic institutions, and internal threats posed by populist leaders such as Netanyahu add to this danger.
Israel is a democracy and country worth saving. As the Middle East’s only democracy, we cannot let it’s domestic leaders threaten it’s democratic survival any more.
Hey Maegan, this was a very fascinating piece to read. I really like that you emphasized Israel’s democracy making it an outlier in the Middle East. Considering Israel’s uncommon status as a democracy in this relatively authoritative and instable region, the signs of democratic erosion you have identified are quite concerning. I like that you brought up Netanyahu’s inflammatory statements as well as his lack of accountability for said statements, which is an indication of dangerous demagoguery within top Israeli leadership.
My only question for you has to do with your choice to describe Netanyahu as a populist. While you did an excellent job demonstrating his use of anti-Arab rhetoric, I would have liked to see you bring in some evidence exposing his anti-elite positioning. As we learned from Dr. Cas Mudde’s lecture earlier this semester, a distinguishing feature of populism is a political leader’s conscious decision to frame the people as good and pure while also depicting the elites as corrupt and evil. I feel that clarifying the definition of populism while providing evidence of Netanyahu’s anti-elite sentiments would have made your argument even more powerful.
Aside from that minor criticism, this post was great and it did a fine job illustrating signs of democratic erosion in Israel that many might overlook.
Hi Maegan! I found your blog post to be very informative. It is interesting to see that Israel was able to maintain a democracy for so long given that it is the only standing democracy in the Middle East. It is sad to see in the case of Israel that it only takes one leader to begin to erode democracy. You mention that some of the erosion of Israel’s democracy can be attributed to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I also thought it was interesting that you noted how fragile democracy really is. I feel like the fragility of democracy is sometimes taken for granted, that is why it is important to study democratic erosion and potentially stop it before it happens. Netanyahu’s exclusion of certain minority groups and use of heavy sentiments to mobilize his voters is definitely a threat to Israel’s democracy, and it should not be tolerated under any circumstance. I agree with you that remarks like this are dangerous. It is good to see that Israel’s citizens are able to voice their opinion against the government, and I like that you included this point. The ability of the citizens to express dissent towards Netanyahu and protest him may have saved Israel’s democracy. As you mention, Israel has a pretty strong democracy, and it looks like the issues of democratic erosion were mostly facilitated by Netanyahu. Hopefully, the next administration will get Israel’s democracy back on track.
Hello Maegan! This was a really informative post about Netanyahu’s presidency. I’ve always known Israel as a home of many religious and for various disputes about which held the rights to Jerusalem, a major city in some the most popular religious in the world. The alienation of minorities, specifically the Israeli Arab population is ironic to me considering the decades of alienation that Israeli Jews have faced themselves. The comments on voting and the implication of distrust voiced by Netanyahu reminds me of electoral rigging claims here in the US, and even the Electoral Integrity Act here in Georgia. All of these are indicators of our democracies backsliding, and as the Middle East’s only democracy, it places a special importance on ensuring its survival. While there is a new administration in Israel, the damage has been done.
Populism in the Holy Land
Rolling green hills, crystal blue seas, and the glowing golden top of the Dome of the Rock: a land so holy and sacred to millions of people across cultures, religions, and national boundaries. This scene is how the media, particularly in the West, depict the state of Israel. Yet, it is starkly different from the reality of the millions of Palestinian people who occupy this geographic location. Since its beginning in 1948, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and created a deep divide between the Muslim and Jewish religious groups. In recent years, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the resulting human rights crisis have weakened the existing democratic institutions and threatened the stability of Israel’s democracy. Furthermore, in agreement with the argument made by Taback, the state of Israel is plagued with democratic erosion, and Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of the state of Israel, is a populist-authoritarian leader.
Populism is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups in democracy. All populist-authoritarian leaders have similarities as well as unique characteristics. In other words, there is not a clear-cut definition of a populist, rather a framework to help us identify one. Populists, like Netanyahu, tend to rise to power through the normal electoral processes. However, once they are in office, they begin altering the democratic institutions to prevent the opposition from gaining power and to ensure the prolongation of their leadership position. Specifically, populist leaders dismantle electoral processes by making it burdensome for groups of citizens to vote, controlling the methods in which votes are counted, restricting opposition media access, using government funds for campaigning, and limiting voter registration (Jan-Werner Müller). For example, Taback cited that Netanyahu discouraged Arab citizens from voting in his re-election by making comments about his distrust in this population and the need for cameras at polling places to ensure complete transparency. Not only did this decrease democratic engagement, but it also bolstered anti-Arab sentiments and further polarized the religiously divided society. This polarization is a key component of populist political strategy and furthers the idea that Netanyahu is a populist.
Other indicators of populist leadership and democratic erosion mentioned by Taback include Netanyahu’s claim that Israel is exclusively a Jewish state. This statement isolates Israel’s minorities and further pushes anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiments onto the general population. Netanyahu’s Zionist claims are comparable to the “Us vs. Them” rhetoric in which populist leaders claim that only they can represent the people – Israeli Jews in this case. He frequently targets the leftist elite in an attempt to dismantle the bureaucratic state comprised of knowledgeable professionals. Netanyahu claims this group of outsiders is conspiring against him, which relates to Accemoglu’s point. He explains that populists tend to criticize the other side when they speak to deflect the public’s attention from governmental actions that change policy and alter institutions, slowly degrading democracy (Acemoglu et al.). An example of this legislation that Taback mentioned was the Nation State Law that subordinates Arab citizens and further pushes them into a minority by outlining Israel as a Jewish state. Populist orientated actions, such as this one, support the notion that Netanyahu is a populist authoritarian leader.
A final characteristic of Netanyahu’s populist leadership is his failure to take accountability for his actions. In 2019, Taback explained that he attempted to blame his prosecutors and the entire legal system when he was indicted on several corruption charges. Instead of accepting the charges against him, he used populist rhetoric to reveal to his followers the flaws in the democratic systems. This behavior closely resembles the conduct of former US President Trump, who is outlined as a populist exemplar in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die. Netanyahu fits all the four warning signs of autocracy that Levitsky and Ziblatt laid out in the first chapter. Netanyahu isn’t committed to the rules of democracy (1). His refusal to accept the corruption charges laid out against him is a prime example of this. Netanyahu also denies his opponents’ legitimacy (2), promotes violence (3), and supports punishing his opponents and critics (4) (Levitsky and Ziblatt). All of these attributes provide evidence to support the claim that Netanyahu is a populist authoritarian leader.
As mentioned above by Taback, there is a new administration in Israel today and a significant group supporters protecting the guardrails of liberal democracy. Therefore, some may argue that Israel is not vulnerable to populist authoritarian rule. To explain, a comparison to the United States party system is necessary. In the United States, the electorate is based on a plurality majority system in which a winner-take-all strategy is used to elect officials to local, state, and national legislature positions. This system contrasts the type of proportional representation system used in Israel. The plurality majority system makes the US especially vulnerable to populist authoritarian rule (Dahl). In contrast, proportional representation makes it easier for smaller interest groups to gain influence within the political party and promotes cooperation between political parties. Successful democracies, such as Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, have a proportional representation system. Because electoral laws in these nations dictate that seats in legislation are proportional to the voting percentages, political parties and small interest groups are encouraged to build coalitions and promote compromise. Israel’s proportional representation electoral system, therefore, is advantageous to the preservation of its democracy and aids in preventing the rise of populists to power in the future.
Despite the protection that the proportional representation electorate system provides to Israeli democracy, the rise of populist leaders like Netanyahu and his use of “Us vs. Them” rhetoric as well as his failure to take accountability for his actions have led to the democratic erosion in the state of Israel. The years of conflict and instability in this region have weakened the established institutions in this state and led to the invasion of populism in the holy land.
Hello Maegan! I thought your critique of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was well organized and supported with clear examples of his behaviors and literal convictions. The tie-in of both Netanyahu’s offensive statements and the legal actions taken to divide Israelis help build a case against him as not only a polarizing but potentially harmful leader. If Israel was barely able to escape fifteen years of Netanyahu’s rule, it’s a wonder if other similar nations plagued by personalistic populist leaders will be able to follow suit and upend harmful leaders. For example, in the United States, former President Donald Trump was viewed by many as deeply harmful to American values and standards. While he is now out of office, his followers still actively contest and question the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, expecting him to run and purposedly win again in 2024. If Mr. Trump’s fans expect him to make a return to politics, could the same be expected of Mr. Netanyahu? Does the former prime minister still have supporters who may be favorable to his return, and if so, what is the likelihood of such a regression? Hopefully, the new government is prepared if such a day should arrive, to defend their new forms of leadership and fight the return of Netanyahu’s age of corruption. I also appreciated your mention of Israel’s unique geopolitical status, especially as a longstanding US ally, and the complexities involved with its internal ethnoreligious conflicts. Overall, this was an excellent post and very informative, great job!
This article is a great precursor the events that have taken place in Israel in the last year. In the past year Netanyahu has regained power and been able to avoid his corruption case due to proposed legal forms to the Israeli judicial law. Furthermore, the Israeli right has taken an even further right turn with the rise of kahanism again taking hold. Kahanism is the view that the state of Israel is incompatible with “western democracy” due to the values of orthodox judaism and thus needs to be a theocracy helmed by a council of rabbi’s. This may fall in line with the increasingly polarized palestinian conflict, which is clear due to the disenfranchisement of many arab voters. Furthermore Israel has not been able to form a government for the past 5 years, thus I think it is highly possible that Israel could descende in autocracy very soon. Assumed and exaggerated security threats could be enough to gain a populist support for such reforms across Israel.