Featured Post

Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!

(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...

Nov 17, 2015

changing government term to 5 years

MK Nissan Slomianski (Habayit Hayehudi), wants to change the length of the Knesset term from 4 years to 5 years, similar to the length of municipal governments. Slomianski thinks this will add  to the stability of the government.

Obviously this sounds funny because governments in Israel do not, with rare exception, even make it close to the four years they were elected to, so why bother pushing it up to 5?

Slomianski's plan would set the MKs that are elected to the Knesset to the full 5 years. While coalitions might be changed mid-term, the same 120 MKs that are elected would remain in office for the full 5 years.
source: NRG

I like the idea, but I'm not quite sure how it would work within our style of coalition government.

If, for example, Netanyahu today decided to dismantle the coalition, or Bennet or Deri pulled out of the coalition, it would force new elections. Netanyahu could avoid elections by forming an alternate coalition - bringing in Labor or Yisrael Beyteynu, for example. However, let's say this happened, but Netanyahu couldn't come to terms with any other parties and couldn't persuade another party to join his coalition - what then? According to Slomianski's plan there would not be elections, the MKs would continue, and Netanyahu would govern with no coalition? Theoretically that is possible in municipal government, even if it only rarely happens, as the vote for mayor and the vote for city councilperson are separated. Can a national government function with no coalition? What laws or policies would he be able to pass and implement?

It seems to be a minor change in a system that needs a major overhaul

Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel


  1. I think that this situation has happened in Canada, where the Prime Minister headed a minority government - i.e., he not have a coalition with an automatic majority.
    I think what happened was that any bill that was proposed would be judged on it's own merit and to pass would need the support of at least one party (or individual MPs) in the opposition, e.g., some bills may pass based on support from the left, others may pas based on support from the right and other bills may be rejected.

    Not that different from what we have in Israel now, where although in theory the PM has a majority, there is always a risk that a party in the coalition will vote against a particular bill.

    1. Canada does have Minority Governments from time to time.The current trend is not to form formal coalitions with an Opposition Party. They are relatively short lived as they present their own challenges. The Government can fall on bills that are considered Votes of Confidence. The budge is automatically a vote of confidence. The Government can declare any vote a Vote of Confidence forcing the opposition to either let it pass or topple the Government. The Opposition can propose Votes of Confidence on Oppositions Days (days the Opposition has control of parliament to try to pass their own legislation).

      Taking down the Government on an issue that is considered minor to the public often does not boast well for the Opposition Party during the election. An Opposition Party who helps the Government stay in power by supporting the Government the budget may have a hard time telling their constituents how terrible the budget it.

      In Israel there are so many parties with such short term limited interest in focussing on what is best for the entire country, I believe we would end up with a system where the Knesset would just wait around waiting for elections.

      What happens if the Knesset can't pass a budget not matter how many different parties are given the opportunity to sit in the PM chair. Do we just go with last year's budget for 2 - 3 years?

  2. There is more missing from this item as you have raised with your questions. Yes, it logically increases stability, but what is Slomianski's motive?

    I oppose any major overhaul in the system and you contradict your hope of increasing stability with this opinion. We have a system. It works. There are disadvantages. There is greener grass in other countries but certainly they also have dry patches and mud as well. Making drastic changes causes disruption that might not be advantageous to us so IMO any planned changes should be done with a long term plan and done subtly over time.


Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...