> One argument for proportional representation is that it encourages positive
> campaigning. In two-party systems, negative attacks work because if the
> slime hits hard, the target's followers have no where to go but to the party
> throwing the slime. In multi-party proportional representation systems, the
> argument goes that since attacks on an opponent can lead to those opponent's
> followers defecting, but to other rival parties, so negative attacks
> backfire.
>
> Well in Israel, land of PR run amok, the current campaign is an impressive
> mess of venom of something like thirty parties. Here is today's Jerusalem
> Post:
Four points deserve mention:
(1) At several points in my posts I've noted that there are variations in systems of proportional representation which are very important in acheiving the desired ends. I haven't gone into them in any detail because they only become important once the general idea is appreciated, and people are interested in getting down to brass tacks.
But now, since Nathan has posted this, I'll specify one of them: the setting the level of minimal qualification for representation.
In most countries this level is at or above 5%. This is the case in Germany, for example. In Israel, the level is 1%. Naturally, this has the result of encouraging splintering.
(2) There's evidence that this alone is not a controlling factor, but that the political history of a country is controlling in terms of how splintered or cohesive the overall party structuring of the electorate is. Israel, with its unique military/political position, is clearly unlike any other democracy, and the various different waves of immigration have played an additional unique role in altering the electoral mix radically and rapidly.
(3) The current situation in Isreali is perhpas most analogous to that in the US in 1860. WITHOUT proportional representation, we had an even more acrimonious campaign, with multiple candidates, a winner elected who failed to gain a majority, which resulted in a large segment of the electoral losers launching a treasonous civil war, the animosities of which continue to distort our politics with virulent hatred to this very day.
(4) Things have gotten much worse since the leadership was severed from its foundation in being able to form a parliamentary majority. This change -- dubious at best in the abstract -- was implemented at a period of time when politically divisive forces were at an extreme pitch, even for Israel, and it unsurprisingly dramatically increased the degree of fragmentation.
In short, it's utterly specious to blame Israel's troubles on PR.
That said, it's utterly foolish to expect PR (or any other formal political structure, practice or process) by itself to provide political salvation or even improvement. Here in California, for example, the initiative, once key to challenging the corporate power of Southern Pacific, is now putty in the hands of moneyed corporate sponsors. I have NEVER argued that PR is a magic bullet which will solve all our problems.
The problems we see in Israel definitely SHOULD be studied for the light they shed on how NOT to implement a system of proportional representation. One more factor is surely worth noting -- the role of the media, which is a major focus of the article Nathan posted. I've always advocated that PR has to be approached as one ingredient in a democracy coctail. Money and media policy HAVE to be shaped by an over-riding set of principles which are democratic, rather than plutocratic.
Half measures can ALWAYS be used to discredit radical, transformative proposals. This is precisely what critics of PR routinely do with Israel.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"