By Michael Regenstreif
This season has – and will continue to be – a fascinating time for those of us who are highly interested in politics.
As I write, we’re about two weeks past the Canadian federal election and, in a few days, Americans will head into their voting booths. And the Israeli election date has now been set for February 10.
By the time you read this column, the results of the U.S. election will be known. If the polling data available three days before the election holds up – and I’ll be highly surprised if it doesn’t – Senator Barack Obama of Illinois will be the president-elect.
Obama’s election will be a watershed moment in American history – a moment whose great hope and promise Obama will have to work hard to fulfil in the coming years.
The question has been raised often during the very long presidential campaign about what an Obama presidency will mean for Israel. No less an authority than Joe the Plumber, a man Republican candidate Senator John McCain called his “hero,” was quick to agree with the poppycockish statement that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel.”
Obama has been a great friend to Israel and I’ve no doubt he will continue to be. His promised engagement in the Middle East peace process, from the very beginning of his mandate – as opposed to George W. Bush, who engaged only at the tail end of his already-failed presidency – is the best hope for peace since Yitzhak Rabin’s tragic assassination.
Ambassador Dennis Ross, a highly respected veteran of Middle East peace negotiations in the administrations of the first George Bush and Bill Clinton, is Obama’s top adviser on Middle East issues. He will be in Ottawa on November 24 to deliver the keynote address at the Negev Dinner. It should be fascinating to hear what he has to say at this important time.
Of course, much will depend on who wins the Israeli election (and whether there will be a Palestinian leadership able to act authoritatively on behalf of its people). Will Israelis choose Kadima’s Livni or Likud’s Netanyahu? They have very different agendas.
And, given Israel’s proportional representation system, to whom will the next Israeli prime minister be beholden when it comes to putting together a governing coalition?
Speaking of proportional representation, it’s been pointed out that, if Canada had such a system, rather than our first-past-the-post system, Parliament would look very different than it does today. The October 14 election results would have given us fewer Conservative and Bloc members and more from the Liberals and NDP. The Green Party, with nearly seven per cent of the popular vote, would have elected about 21 MPs.
Taking the logic to its limit, a party with one-third of one per cent of the vote could be entitled to an MP. Imagine all the single-interest groups who could garner one-third of one per cent of the vote. While Israeli electoral law demands that a party garner two per cent of the vote to be represented in the 120-seat Knesset, the percentage in Canada, with 308 parliamentary seats, would have to be much lower.
Having watched Israeli politics for many years, and having seen how the major Israeli parties have had to dicker for the support of narrowly focused or single-issue parties, I’d think long and hard before introducing such a system here.
No comments:
Post a Comment