The Security
of the Parliamentary Republic:
the Model of Israel
Tracing the debate over the constitutional reforms in
Armenia, we deemed it useful, based upon the results of three academic trips, to
interview Major General Hayk Kotanjian — Head of the Institute for National
Strategic Studies, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Armenia; Doctor of
Political Science; Professor — about the Israeli model of the parliamentary
republic in terms of effectiveness of the security policy.
E&O: Dear
General, in your opinion, what is the similarity of the lessons learned by the
Armenian and Jewish peoples from the national catastrophes they went through in
the 20th century?
H.K.:Notwithstanding the remarkable unique identity of these two
ancient players in shaping civilization systems in West Asia and the Middle
East, to my mind, they share political lessons learned from national
catastrophes having experienced during the two World Wars of the 20th
century — the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the
Genocide-Holocaust of the Jews of Europe. Both peoples responded to the
national catastrophes following the World Wars having driven them to the verge
of total annihilation, with the revival of the culture of their ancient
millennia-old statehood and creation of independent nation states – the Republic
of Armenia
and the State of Israel. Another important feature of similarities of these two
re-established nation states is that the Republic
of Armenia
in 1918 and the State of Israel in 1948 were proclaimed parliamentary
republics.
Dear
Professor, how would you assess the current threats to the national security of
Israel and the effectiveness of the
parliamentary model of government in terms of guaranteed political security and
sustainable development of the State of Israel?
Security threats to the State
of Israel are not inferior to the level of security threats to the Republic
of Armenia:
the majority of Islamic countries consider the existence of Israel
to be illegal (only Egypt
and Jordan
recognized Israel)
and overtly express the need to eliminate it. Their policy and the activities
of non-state actors of radical Islam manipulated by them pose external and
internal threats to the existence of the State of Israel. The legitimacy of the
State of Israel is called into question by the radicals of Orthodox Judaism as
well (the Lord is the only Leader, and no one else can exercise power over the
Jewish people).
Political and security analysts
of Israel single out three components of strategic vulnerability causing
existential threat to Israel, which are taken as a given in the National
Security Strategy of the state: 1. Huge demographic advantage of the Arab
(Islamic) countries; 2. Vulnerability of borders for lack of strategic depth
(width of the territory
of Israel
in certain areas does not exceed fifteen kilometers); 3. Necessity to deter the
enemy in a hard protracted conflict that requires investments of huge resources
for defense needs (1947-1949 — Israel’s War
of Independence, 1956 — Suez Crisis; 1967 — Six-Day War, 1967-1970 — War of Attrition, 1973 — Yom Kippur War,
1982-2000 — First Lebanon War, 1991 — Israel's participation in the Gulf War,
2006 — Second Lebanon War, 2008-2009 —
Operation Cast Lead (Gaza War)).
The
toolkit for resolving internal political conflicts, as well as successfully
countering external threats in the Israeli model of parliamentarism has proved
to be effective over 67 years: with the duration of the cadence of the Knesset
for 4 years, the average length of activity of the convocation of the
Parliament over the years of Israel's existence is quite high and is 3.5 years.
In this case, the reason of productivity of political crises management lies in
the consistency of Israeli parliamentary model reflecting the strategic
interests of national security and sustainable development of the Jewish people
both in Israel
and in the system of World Jewry as a whole.
Dear Professor, as a political scientist and researcher in
the field of political institutes and processes of national security, could you
briefly present the essence of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel regarding
the effectiveness of key actors and processes of making and implementing
decisions of national scale?
First of all, it should be
noted that, in response to the Genocide-Holocaust, the Founding Fathers of the
State of Israel, resting upon the resolution of the UN Security Council, shared
the conviction that in order for the Jewish state to become a safe heaven and
beacon for the progressive and sustainable development both for the Jews living
on the land of the Zion, and the World Jewry as a whole, the State of Israel
ought to be created as an effective democracy. And now the State of Israel in
practice is the only effective democracy in the Greater Middle East, as well as
a beacon of sustainable democratic development for the entire World Jewry.
The political role of a
nonpartisan President, who is elected by the Parliament—the Knesset, and takes
the ceremonial and protocol role as the Head of the state, and is also endowed
with strategically important political powers, is of exceptional importance in
this parliamentary model. From the elected members of the Parliament he
nominates the candidate for the Prime Minister mandated to negotiate with
parliamentary parties for the formation of the government.
The Prime Minister of
Israel—after the Parliament approves his Government—becomes the state center of
guaranteeing the national security and sustainable development of the State of
Israel. Receiving the proposal by the President, before the approval of the
Cabinet he holds consultations with the parties which may support his
Government, and clarifies their requirements both on political matters, and
concerning the appointments in the ministries and other agencies. After the
consultations with the parties, the Coalition structure and its program, as a
range of coordinated guidelines making up the political strategy of the
Coalition, are developed.
Based upon the negotiations between the Prime Minister and
the Coalition parties, the decision on distributing the ministerial posts in
the Government is made. The tool for distributing the ministerial posts serves
the “ministerial key”, i.e., the co-relation of the overall number of members
of the parliament factions supporting the Prime Minister, to the number of
ministers in the Government. The number of ministerial portfolios which every
faction is to receive is decided by a number of members of that faction in the
Knesset, divided by the “key”. The problem of “remainders” is solved via the
appointment of deputy ministers and other officials. It is noteworthy that,
given the fact that the majority of ministers and all deputy ministers are
members of the Parliament, provides the Prime Minister with an additional
resource in support of his policy and influence of the Cabinet upon passing the
parliamentary decisions, especially in furthering the legislative initiatives
by the Government. In the Israeli Government the post of the Vice-Premier is
also available, and holding of more than one office is also possible.
Dear
Professor, what are the specifics of Israel in terms of ensuring the
legitimacy of the Government and the activity of its members in the Knesset at
the parliamentary model of governance?
The election of the Prime Minister and the ministers from
among the members of the Parliament asserts the legitimacy of not only the
Premier, but also the Government at large. After being approved by the Knesset
the ministers receive the vote of confidence both from “below” — the mass
support, and from “above” — the Parliament, the elite support. After consultations—on adequate grounds—the
candidate for minister’s post if necessary may be nominated also a non-member
of the Parliament (usually an influential specialist). The minister from among
the Knesset members has limitations in his parliamentary activity: he may not
make parliamentary inquiries, introduce his bills as an MP, cast a vote of no
confidence in the government, be a member of Knesset committees. Sometimes a
minister upon taking office renounces his parliamentary mandate; while his
party (the Coalition) does not lose his seat—it is taken by the next person in
the party list.
Unlike the practice in other states,
the Deputy Minister in Israel
is a political figure. In particular, according to the law, he must be a member
of the Knesset (we would remind you that such a strict requirement doesn’t
apply to the Minister), and he is also responsible for ensuring the liaison
between the Ministry and the Knesset. The appointment and the dismissal of the
Deputy Minister is not the Minister’s but the Premier’s prerogative (however,
the Minister’s consent in this case is also obligatory). The Government reports
on this to the Knesset, nevertheless the Parliament’s permission is not
required. It should be noted that the above-mentioned parliamentary
restrictions concerning the ministers, also apply to the deputy ministers.
Dear General, please briefly present the place and role of
the National Security Council (NSC) in the system of parliamentary governance
of the State of Israel.
The NSC of the State of Israel is a special tool of the Government’s power
carrying out the development and coordination of interagency policy aimed at
ensuring the national security and sustainable development of Israel.
The coordinator of the activities of this special body, chaired by the Prime
Minister, is the Secretary of NSC, who is appointed from among nonpartisan
highly qualified specialists, and whose activities shall not be made public.
The
interagency policy of national security, developed by the NSC chaired by the
Israeli Prime Minister on strategic issues of foreign policy and security, is
promptly carried out by the Prime Minister through the Security Cabinet
(Narrow/Kitchen Cabinet) endowed with the necessary powers and resources.
Dr. Kotanjian, how do you view
the use of the Israeli model and experience in the preparation and discussion
of the draft of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia as the basis of the
constitutional reform with the transition to a parliamentary model of state
governance?
Indeed,
the uncritical copying of Israel’s
experience would be wrong, and the State Commission on the drafting of the
Constitution did not allow it. As an example of the specificity of the Israeli
experience we can note that the parliamentary model of governance in Israel
successfully operates without any Constitution in the State of Israel. The
legal regulation of the system of the government and the political activity of
public institutions is carried out according to the system of Basic Laws.
Using
the lessons of the guaranteed provision of the national security in the
parliamentary model of Israel under the concentration of power (powers of the
government-administration and resources) in the hands of the Prime Minister—the
head of the ruling inter-party Coalition - (with a restricted role of the
nonpartisan President with ceremonial and protocol functions) requires a
pragmatic calculation — with a sober view of specificity of the political
culture of the Republic of Armenia.
Dear Professor Kotanjian, what
would you like to note as a conclusion?
In
conclusion, I would like to mention the real democratic character of the
parliamentary model of governance in Israel,
at the origins of the State of Israel aimed at the development of political
party system in the proportional elections to the Parliament with a low
threshold for parties to the supreme representative body of power. Israeli
politicians and experts themselves do not consider the experience ideal.
Skillfully using the tools of public and confidential criticism, they work to
identify shortcomings and overcome them. The democracy of the parliamentary
model of the government in Israel
is characterized by high political culture of pluralism and party
competitiveness with continuous criticism, identification of flaws, and lessons
learned from them for the improvement of the democratic Jewish state.
And
of course, it should be emphasized that the people of Israel, being aware of
its responsibility as a main source of power and using the tools of effective
democracy, have the opportunity to do whatever is necessary within the limits
of the guaranteed rights and freedoms, as well as civil liabilities to the
State of Israel, that in its Parliament—the Knesset and then in the Government
the most worthy representatives were elected.
