![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Throughout the existence of the State of Israel, democracy has been perceived by both leaders and citizens as one of the fundamental values making up the moral foundation for the state's existence. Yet, repeated infringements against essential democratic values and foundations have made evident that Israeli democracy faces a momentous test. In addition, various studies of public attitudes toward democracy have found that in many cases, the basis of support for democracy in general, as well as for the fundamental values of democracy, are not at all stable.
The central argument of this article is that in examining attitudes of early leaders of the state toward democracy, we can identify the roots of the same problems and deficiencies evident in the culture of Israeli democracy today. Furthermore, in our view the attitudes of the state's founders, as well as the attitudes and conduct of the leaders after them, have substantially contributed to the lack of consistent emphasis on education for democracy by the Israeli education system. Consequently, over the years a significant gap has developed between Israelis' perceptions of their country as a democratic state and the actual un-democratic conduct of the state and its citizens.
In light of the above, the first part of this article reviews the state of education for democracy in Israel over the years, emphasizing the attitudes of leaders and decision-makers in these areas in different periods. The second part presents a review of the problems and deficiencies with which Israeli democracy struggles today. Following this is an examination of public attitudes toward democracy and democratic values, emphasizing the attitudes of Israeli youth in these areas. In conclusion, we find a relationship between the general long-term failure of education for democracy and the condition of Israeli democracy today. Likewise, we offer a number of suggestions and ideas for correction and improvement in this area of education for democracy in the State of Israel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This article is based on the lecture given by the second author at the Michael Chen Memorial Conference at Tel Aviv University, January 29, 2004. The authors thank Talie Fried for the translation of the paper from Hebrew
Notes
1. In this paper, we use the terms “education for democracy” and “democratic education” interchangeably.
2. It should be emphasized that in order to establish the claim that we are proposing to present in this article, we found it appropriate to set out a survey and analysis of a relatively large and diverse range of fields of study: education for democracy, a historical survey of education for democracy in Israel, the state of Israeli democracy, and Israeli public attitudes regarding democracy. However, it is important to note that due to the limitations of space these areas will not be surveyed to the deepest and broadest extent possible, but rather, to a more limited extent that will enable each to “contribute their part” in assembling the general picture that the present article attempts to put forward.
3. CitationKimmerling (1992) defines the decision on the basic definition of democracy as one of four “framework decisions” that each researcher must carry out before beginning to examine Israeli democracy (or indeed any other relevant field of social research).
4. In recent years the broad conception of ‘liberal democracy’ has drawn criticism from progressive views such as that of ‘multicultural democracy,' which sees liberalism as concealing the significant oppression of minority groups. According to the central argument of this theory, democracy must also provide broad space for the collective rights of minorities and not only for the rights of minority group members as individuals (CitationKymlicka, 1995). Accordingly, the basic character of liberal democracy is nothing more than a catalyst for the assimilation of minority groups into the dominant majority. However, since in our view a thorough analysis of each of the innovative approaches that criticize liberal democracy is beyond the scope of this paper, we choose to relate to liberal democracy as the starting point for this article.
5. CitationPeled (1993) defines the form of government in the years state's founding as a “republican democracy.” The significance of this kind of democracy is that it “confers moral priority to the collective social good, over the rights of the individual” (p. 24). In the case of the State of Israel in the years of its founding, the “collective good” received suitable expression in Zionist aims and accordingly, those who did not adhere to these aims (Arabs), were naturally excluded by the civil and democratic mechanisms.
6. Former State Comptroller Miriam Ben-Porat even claimed that “if we turned some principles from the Declaration of Independence into something of a constitution, a lot of things in the state would look different” (Shibi, 1986).
7. Therein it is stated that “the goal of mamlachti (state religious) education is to found elementary education in the State of Israel on the values of Israeli culture and scientific achievement, on love of the homeland and loyalty to the state and to the Jewish people, on faith in agricultural and manual work, on pioneer training, and on the aspiration for a society built on liberty and equality, tolerance, mutual help, and love of health.
8. This perception stands completely opposed to the view presented by Moshe Negbi in his 1987 book, according to which the issue of democracy and rule of law must serve as one of the central goals that Zionism set out for itself (CitationNegbi, 1987).
9. This may be qualified by stating that the goals set forth by the report of the education system also includes instilling 100 fundamental concepts in Zionism and democracy. However, as noted, most of these concepts primarily emphasize Jewish and Zionist heritage and not democracy.
10. Space here is too limited to include discussion of the practical significance of the Basic Laws of 1992. However, even those who do not accept the position of Aharon Barak regarding the “constitutional revolution” agree that 1992 was a significant landmark on the path to constitutional change (Gavison, 1998).
11. Yiftachel asserts that the “ethnic democracy” definition, established by Smooha, is “lenient” with Israeli democracy. To his view, the regime in Israel can be defined as an ethnocracy, which in practice means that under present conditions it is not a democracy at all (Yiftachel, 2002).
12. It should be emphasized that although the relations between the Israeli state and its Arab citizens are most complicated, negative and exclusionist attitudes towards Muslims in general and Muslim immigrants in particular are a very common phenomena in western Europe, mainly in the last two decades (For a review of exclusionist attitudes towards immigrants (Muslims and others) in 22 European countries, see: CitationScheepers, Gilsberts & Coenders, 2002). Hence, it would be a mistake to refer to it as a local Israeli problem instead of a more global one.
13. A total of 146 countries participated in the study, including non-democratic countries. Thus, Israel's placement as 26th on the list puts it in a problematic position compared to the lion's share of Western countries, which aim to be liberal democracies (www.transparency.org).
14. Itzhak Zamir best defined “political appointment” in his writings as follows: “The appointment of a person to a certain position is “political” when it would not have been done had that same person not been a political figure. In this case politics, in the narrow sense of partisanship, is a central factor in the appointment” (Zamir, 1990, p. 19).
15. The comparative measures were assembled by the Israel Democracy Institute using data from a number of international research institutes, and include data from 36 democratic countries. The countries that took part in the study were: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States.
16. The initiators of the surveys (CitationArian et al., 2003; CitationArian et al., 2004) divide the “non-institutional” aspects of democracy into (1) the aspect of rights and (2) the aspect of stability.
17. This series of studies was carried out by Peres and Yaar-Yuchtman at the Israeli Democracy Institute and included an examination of Israeli public commitment to democracy every 4–6 months. The surveys were published in the institute's journal, and later in two central books: CitationPeres and Yaar (1992) and CitationPeres and Yaar-Yuchtman (1998).
18. CitationZemach and Tsin (1984) studied 651 youth comprising a representative sample of Jewish youth aged 15–18 in Israel.
19. CitationBen-Sira (1990) surveyed 1,840 9th, 11th, and 12th grade students at 24 schools. The study was carried out at the invitation of the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport.
20. The Israeli team for this study included Prof. Dan Bar-On, Amda-Or, and Shifra Sagi.
21. The influence of religiosity on democratic attitudes was also expressed in the comparative study presented in the earlier part of this paper.
22. For this, some have termed Israeli democracy as a “democracy-in-the-making,” some as a “defensive democracy” (CitationPedahzur, 2002, Citation2004), and others have defined it as a limited or “second-rate” democracy (CitationSmooha, 2002A).
Ben-Sira, Z. (1990). Democracy and pupils in post-elementary Jewish education: Essence, support, and significance for education for democracy. Solicited and funded by the Office of the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Education and Culture (in Hebrew).
Goldenberg, D. (1998). Influence of a democratic school on the knowledge and attitudes of its pupils. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew)
Kemp, A., & Raijman, R. (2003). “Foreign workers in Israel.” Information on equality. 13th ed., Adva Center (in Hebrew).
Michael, K. (2005). Influence of the military on the process of transition from war to peace: The Israeli case. Focused comparative study: The peace process with Egypt and the Oslo process. Ph.D. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
Pedahzur, A., & Canetti-Nisim, D. (2005). Kahane is dead and Kahanism lives: A model for explaining the support of the extreme right in Israel. Megamot [in press] (in Hebrew).
Ravitzky, A. (2004). Is a Halachic state possible? The paradox of Jewish theocracy. Position paper no. 50. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute (in Hebrew).
Rippel, Y., & Levin, I. (2003). Heritage, Zionism, democracy: 100 basic concepts. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (in Hebrew).
Sasson Report. (2005). Summary of the opinion on the matter of illegal outposts. Jerusalem: Office of the Prime Minister – Department of Communications (in Hebrew).
Sharvit, K., & Bar-Tal, D. (2005). The ethos of conflict in the Israeli media: Past and present trends. In Y, Raz and A, Zanger (Eds.), Violence, terrorism and trauma in film and in the media [in press]. Tel Aviv: |nOpen University (in Hebrew)
Smooha, S. (1999). The model of ethnic democracy: Characteristics, conditions and comparisons, paper presented in the International Conference on Multiculturalism and Democracy in Divided Societies. Center for Multiculturalism and Educational Research, University of Haifa.
Smooha, S. (2002B). Survey of the Arab voter and the Arab public in the 16th Knesset elections: Research report (draft). Submitted to the Political Science Department at Haifa University, to the Israel Democracy Institute, and to the Association for the Advancement of Democracy in the Arab Sector (in Hebrew)
Swirski, S., & Konor-Attias, E. (2001). Social situation report. Adva Center (in Hebrew).
Swirski, S., & Konor-Attias, E. (2001). The shrinking of the middle class in Israel, 1998–2002. Adva Center (in Hebrew).
The Dovrat Report: National task force for the advancement of education in Israel. (2005). The national plan for education. Ministry of Education. (in Hebrew).
Special circular no. 1. Director-general's circular (September 1984). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.
The diaries of Ben-Gurion, 14 September 1943. Archives of the of the Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute. (in Hebrew).