I don’t mean this as a commentary on the current Hamas-Israel War. Instead, I want to talk about how the Israeli government makes decisions, and how it differs fundamentally from the United States.
I thought about this on Tuesday of this week, as we were all waiting for Israel to decide whether to enter into a brief cessation of hostilities with Hamas. With input from President Biden, Hamas and Netanyahu (the Israel Prime Minister) had reached a tentative agreement, but it needed the approval of the government of Israel before it could be implemented.
So what does this mean? Isn’t Netanyahu “the government?” He’s Prime Minister, after all. Whose approval does he need?
This diagram of the Israeli political system helps us understand this. Israel has a parliamentary system, in which the operational Chief Executive is the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the majority party in the legislature. In Israel, this is called the Knesset. The “Government” is made up of the cabinet – 37 ministers in charge of various departments that make up the executive branch. For the negotiated agreement to go into effect, Netanyahu had to get the approval of the majority of his cabinet. The cabinet met for six hours on Tuesday – stretching into Wednesday morning – before it voted to enter into the ceasefire. I wasn’t able to find details about what went on in this meeting. But the result is positive, although not what either side wanted. That’s what happens in negotiations.
There is a President in Israel, but the position is largely ceremonial, the equivalent in some ways to the King of England. It has no real power.
The United States, on the other hand, has a presidential system.
In such a system, the president (chief executive) is chosen by the electorate (filtered through the Electoral College – a topic for another day) and may reflect a different set of values and priorities than those of the Congress, which is directly elected but through a separate process
In a parliamentary system, it is generally not possible to have a deadlock between an executive of one party and a legislature controlled by another party. A Prime Minister serves at the will of his party in the legislature (see Boris Johnson to see how this works in the UK). This allows for more efficient decision-making in general. However, in a crisis, an American-style president can act more quickly through unilateral action than a Prime Minister. This can be both good and bad. In the American presidential system, the cabinet is not an elected body, and can offer advice but not take control.
Presidential systems are not common across the world.
The countries in medium-blue on this map are Presidential Republics. Most European governments are Parliamentary Republics, with most other developed countries falling in the category of Constitutional monarchies (a parliamentary system with a ceremonial monarch perched on the top). If you enlarge this map, you’ll see that Israel is green — meaning it’s a parliamentary republic.
When the framers of the United States Constitution tried to figure out how they wanted the new political system to operate, they were primarily concerned about how to construct a legislature. They spent more than 2/3 of the time at the Constitutional Convention on this issue, and the Constitution focuses on this article for more than half of its length. The Executive Branch (Article II) is only about four paragraphs long. The Judicial Branch occupies one paragraph.
When you read about the Constitutional Convention, most of what you’ll find is related to the discussion of forming a legislature. You get the feeling that, once they had made some decisions about this issue, they were all tired and ready to go home. They couldn’t decide on how to frame an executive branch – they knew they didn’t want a king, but, beyond that, they weren’t sure what they wanted. So they referred the issue to my favorite committee of the Constitutional Convention – the Committee on Postponed Parts – to come up with a recommendation. The Electoral College was the product of this committee, and it was included in the Constitution with little debate.
I think every group should have a Committee on Postponed Parts. Just sayin’.
The modern notion that tinkering with the Electoral College is somehow sacrilegious is belied by James Madison himself – the man often called the “Father of the Constitution.” Madison didn’t like it when it was passed and liked it even less in 1823, when he wrote a letter proposing reforms that would change the way the process operated. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not “stuck with” this process because “the founders” or something. We’re stuck with it because it benefits the only people who have the power to change it.
Anyway.
President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu are the chief executives of their respective countries. But we should not confuse their powers; they serve very different roles in their very different political systems.
This has been brought to you by my ongoing project called “Trying to understand the world around me.”
I always like it when you tackle an issue to make you understand the world better. I and your other readers are the beneficiaries of your poking around. This was a great piece. And you know I always like maps to show me the way.