The Electoral System in Israel

The Knesset from the Israel Museum

The Israeli Electoral System

Israel has an electoral system based on nation-wide proportional representation, and the number of seats that each list receives in the Knesset – the House of Representatives – is proportional to the number of votes it received. The only limitation is the 2% qualifying threshold. In other words, a party must receive at least 2% of the votes in order to be elected. According to this system, the voters vote for a party list, and not for a particular person on the list. Since the institution of the primaries system in some of the parties, these parties directly elect their candidates for the Knesset. Some of the parties elect their candidates via the party’s institutions. In the ultra-religious parties their spiritual leaders appoint the candidates. The Knesset elections take place once every four years, but the Knesset or the Prime Minister can decide to hold early elections, and under certain circumstances can serve for more than four years.

The system is based on three laws:
• Basic Law: the Knesset ,1958
• The Knesset Elections Law (Combined Version) ,1969 – In Hebrew
• The Parties Law ,1992 – In Hebrew

As determined in the Basic Law: the Knesset, the Electoral System in Israel is general, nationwide, direct, equal, secret and proportional.

General Elections: Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote in Knesset elections, with no differentiation as to religion, ethnic origin or sex, property, education or any other status. Every citizen over the age of 21 has the right to be elected to the Knesset.

Nationwide Elections: The State of Israel is a single electoral district and elections are held throughout the country on the same day and at the same time. The purpose of dividing the country up into polling stations in different districts is to enable an orderly and organized Election Day from an administrative point of view.

Equal Elections: Every citizen voting on Election Day has a single vote which is exactly equal to the vote of any other voter.

Direct Elections: The Israeli public votes directly for its representatives in the Knesset. Elected representatives are determined directly by the results of voting and not by an electoral body (as in other democratic countries around the world). Voting in Israel is for a list of candidates that includes no more than 120 names, a number equal to the number of Knesset seats.

Secret Elections: Voting in the polling booths takes place secretly – the voter enters a specially designated booth alone, selects the voting slip of his choice, places it in a sealed, opaque envelope and inserts the envelope into a ballot box, such that no-one can be aware of his vote.

Proportional Elections: Elections in Israel are proportional, i.e. the number of mandates allocated to each list of candidates is proportional to the number of votes it receives in the elections. For instance, a party which receives 20% of valid votes from voters will have 20% of Knesset mandates. A party is eligible to enter the Knesset on condition that it passes the qualifying threshold, which is currently 2% of valid votes.

The Right to Elect and Be Elected

All citizens of the State of Israel have an equal right to vote and be elected. This right is implemented in two ways:
a) every citizen has the right to vote for his preferred candidate on Election Day
b) every citizen has the right to establish a political party and receive funding from the State for election propaganda purposes.

Who is entitled to vote? 
Every Israeli citizen who is:
• Aged 18 or over
• Registered in the Voters’ Register
• Present in the country on Election Day.

Who is entitled to be elected to the Knesset? 
Any Israeli citizen who is:
• Over age 21
• Registered as a member of one of the political parties in the Party Register
• Not President of the State of Israel, the Chief Rabbi, an IDF career officer, judge, dayan (judge in the religious courts), or senior civil servant
• A citizen becomes a candidate only if his name is included in one of the lists of candidates for the Knesset and if he has given written authorization to that effect.

Who is not entitled to be elected to the Knesset?
• Anyone who has been sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years for a violation against the security of the State or other violations determined by law, where 5 further years have not yet elapsed since his release from prison.

• The President of the State, the State Comptroller, the Chief of Staff, the Chief Rabbis, senior IDF officers, judges, dayanim (judges in the religious courts), senior civil servants.

Separate Elections: Knesset & Prime Minister

The nationwide-proportional electoral system that is in force in Israel is a source of dispute among politicians, academics, legal and judicial experts and the press. Those who oppose it name disadvantages, such as:
• The creation of multiple parties, a situation enabling political “extortion.”
• Instability of government resulting from extensive power being concentrated amongst small parties.

The public debate that has been ongoing throughout the existence of the State of Israel led in 1992 to a change in Israel’s electoral and government system. In 1992, the Basic Law: The Government was amended. The amended law determined that double elections would be held in Israel – direct election of the Prime Minister and proportional election to the Knesset. The vote was to be on two separate ballots in two separate envelopes. This change in the electoral system was designed to:
• Reduce the power of small parties
• Reinforce the status of the Prime Minister
• Diminish the extent of the Prime Minister’s dependency on the Knesset.

Following the change in the electoral system, three rounds of elections were held under the new format: in 1996, 1999 and 2001, in the last of which voting was only for the Prime Minister. A further examination of the status of government in Israel brought about an additional amendment to the law in 2001, canceling the double vote for the Knesset and the Prime Minister, while still reinforcing the power of the Prime Minister and the government by increasing the majority needed to propose a no-confidence vote. In 2006 elections were held for the Knesset.

Fondi sovrani

Le borse scendono in picchiata, la gente vede svanire i propri risparmi, saltano le banche statunitensi, anche l’Europa sprofonda. Interviene il governo americano, quello cinese, quelli europei e, dopo un po’ di saliscendi, le borse recuperano. Poi, ancora un drammatico tonfo. Altre misure, altri incontri fra i governanti del mondo, e le borse risalgono un po’. Dopodiché crollano di nuovo.

Cosa succede? Vengono date tante spiegazioni. Ma tutte a posteriori, quando tutto è già accaduto.

Perché sembra non sia possibile dire oggi cosa accadrà domani delle nostre azioni e dei nostri risparmi in borsa. Eppure sorge un dubbio: non è che questo è vero quanto il fatto che siamo nelle mani dei “fondi sovrani” scatenati nella conquista del mondo con speculazioni finanziarie?

I fondi sovrani sono fondi statali, utilizzati dai governi per investire gli avanzi fiscali o le riserve di valuta estera in strumenti finanziari, come azioni, obbligazioni e immobili.

Non a caso, questi fondi sono nati soprattutto nei paesi esportatori di petrolio e di materie prime (Emirati Arabi Uniti, Arabia Saudita, Qatar, Russia, Norvegia) e in quelli che presentano un elevato surplus fiscale, come Singapore, dove il governo ha costituito il fondo Temasek, uno dei primi nati e dei più attivi, soprattutto nelle imprese del Sud-Est asiatico. Molto attivi sono anche i fondi sovrani di Abu Dhabi e quello di Dubai, che dal 2005 detiene una quota del 5% nella Ferrari. C’è poi ovviamente la Cina che, grazie al suo notevole surplus commerciale, dispone di ingenti riserve di valuta estera (in gran parte investite in titoli di Stato statunitensi) e a fine settembre 2007 ha lanciato il China Investment Corporation, fondo sovrano che vanta un patrimonio di 200 miliardi di dollari.

Appena nato, il fondo del governo di Pechino si è subito messo all’opera acquistando il 10% del gestore statunitense di private equity Blackstone per un esborso di 3 miliardi di dollari e il 9,9% della banca d’affari Usa Morgan Stanley. Manovre di tal tipo hanno portato i fondi sovrani dei Paesi emergenti ad assumere quote di minoranza di società e banche occidentali bisognose di finanziamenti. Fra queste, il fondo degli Emirati Arabi ha rilevato il 4,9% di Citigroup, quello di Dubai il 6% di Hsbc, mentre il Temasek di Singapore ha investito 5 miliardi in Merrill Lynch e 2 miliardi in Barclays. Un attivismo che, connesso alla mancanza di norme sulla trasparenza, preoccupa sia l’Europa sia gli Stati Uniti che temono di perdere il controllo sulle aziende nazionali.

Anche le società italiane sono finite nel mirino dei fondi sovrani dei Paesi emergenti. Tra le operazioni più rilevanti, quelle del fondo Mubadala Investments, il braccio finanziario del Governo degli Emirati Arabi Uniti, che nel 2005 ha acquisito il 5% della Ferrari da Mediobanca e il 35% del produttore di aerovelivoli Piaggio Aero.

Da un paio di anni, pure la Nigeria, paese ricchissimo di materie prime e ottavo esportatore di petrolio al mondo, pensa di implementare un fondo sovrano.

Effettivamente, considerando che dal 1970 ad oggi la Nigeria ha incassato più di 430 miliardi di dollari tra profitti e royalties derivanti dal petrolio, sembra che il paese abbia tutte le carte in regola per farlo. Una montagna di soldi in parte però sperperata negli anni a causa di conflitti interni e cattiva gestione.
Ma è sufficiente avere disponibilità miliardarie per lanciarsi nel complicato mondo degli investimenti finanziari?
La recente crisi globale insegna che una cosa è incassare i profitti legati all’esportazione del petrolio, un’altra è mettersi a capo di un fondo di investimento e riuscire a generare performance soddisfacenti, soprattutto in queste condizioni di mercato.
Gli esempi negativi non mancano, soprattutto tra alcuni dei più grandi fondi governativi del pianeta, che, se dovessero chiudere oggi gli investimenti fatti negli ultimi anni in società, soprattutto finanziarie, registrerebbero perdite miliardarie.

Comunque sia, pare proprio che quello dei fondi sovrani sia divenuto ormai un trend inarrestabile; si calcola che entro il 2015 essi gestiranno più di 15 trilioni di dollari e controlleranno il 5% di tutte le compagnie quotate al mondo.

E, tornando al discorso di apertura, bisognerebbe capire quanto le azioni e il denaro dei piccoli risparmiatori di un Paese dipendano da questi fondi sovrani.

Fondi che dispongono di migliaia di miliardi di dollari e che certamente mirano ad impadronirsi (dopo aver ridotto con manovre speculative il valore alla metà) dei beni primari di un Paese: energia, banche, telefonia, media.
E’, allora, un caso che Berlusconi, nei giorni di pieno tracollo delle borse, abbia invitato gli italiani a comprare azioni dell’Enel e dell’Eni? E’ un caso che abbia tirato fuori la storia dei fondi sovrani da cui il governo dovrebbe difendersi? E’ un caso che dall’inizio del 2008 Enel e Eni abbiano visto ridurre il loro valore in maniera allarmante? E’ un caso che Mediaset in un anno abbia perso circa il 45% del proprio valore in borsa?

La Tv Cinese in panico “taglia Obama” – video

Obama censurato a proposito di dittature e comunismo.

Sarkozy non crede a Berlusconi

Iceland: Storming the Alþingi

On 20 January 2009, parliament in Iceland resumed after the holidays.  But no business as usual for the Icelandic politicians any more.  People began to besiege the parliament building, demanding early elections and not taking “No” for an answer.  Writing for the Guardian today, Eirikur Bergmann described the political atmosphere in Iceland thus: “While Barack Obama was being sworn in to office on Capitol Hill yesterday, the people of Iceland were starting the first revolution in the history of the republic.  The word ‘revolution’ might sound a bit of an overstatement, but given the calm temperament that usually prevails in Icelandic politics, the unfolding events represent, at the very least, a revolution in political activism.”  The siege of the parliament is still continuing today.

Il blog della Casa Bianca

Obama conferma che la comunicazione istituzionale è fondamentale. Più interattiva, più sul fatto e con l’enfasi giusta per aprire una nuova era.

Non è il blog di Barak Obama. E’ il blog che porta la White House tra la gente. Un cambio netto.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/

Gaza: dopo la tregua

Il regista Stefano Savona, unica telecamera italiana all`interno della Striscia di Gaza, dal 18 gennaio 2009 si trova a Gaza City.VENERDI’ , durante il corso della serata, verranno proiettate immagini video inviate da gaza da stefano savona.CHI E’ STEFANO SAVONA:Stefano Savona, regista palermitano, giramondo, sostenitore dei diritti dei più deboli.Promotore dello sciopero della fame per le dimissioni dell’ex governatore della Sicilia condannato per mafia.Pluri premiato all’estero oscurato in Sicilia Da giorni é L’UNICA TELECAMERA EUROPEA PRESENTE NELLA STRISCIA DI GAZA….Rischia la vita ma è convinto che si rischia di più con il silenzio, l’indolenza e la vigliaccheria…Se non riusciste ad esserci venerdì seguitelo comunque su www.dagaza.orgEXPA > 23.01.2009NO.WAR.GAZA.serata speciale di raccolta fondi no war Gazain collaborazione conAnna Ferranti – Valeria Militello – Mila Spicolaproiezione video online www.dagaza.orgdel regista palermitano Stefano Savonaunica telecamera italiana nella striscia di Gazamusic and food from Palestinadrinks € 4,003 + 1 (savethechildren)orario 19/23 ingresso libero“Per chi ritiene che un aiuto economico può contribuire in maniera più incisiva ha la possibilità di contribuire alla raccolta di fondi finalizzata ad inviare aiuti umanitari nella Strisciadi Gaza”.WWW.SAVETHECHILDREN.IToppureper il centro sanitario della Caritas Gerusalemmea Gaza si possono inviare offerte alla Caritas Italiana, specificando nella causale “Terrasanta Gaza”, tramiteC/C POSTALE N. 347013 o con bonifico alla Banca PopolareEtica, via Parigi 17, Roma – Iban: IT29 U050 1803 2000 00000011 113.Per il sostegno alle iniziative dell’Unicef i contributi potrannoessere versati, indicando la causale “Palestina aiuti umanitari”,online dal sito www.unicef.it o con un versamento sul C/C POSTALEN. 745000, intestato all’Unicef, causale “Palestina aiutiumanitari”. Il numero verde dell’Unicef da chiamare per eventualiinformazioni è l’800.745000.

Expa

Grazie a Mila Spicola per queste interessanti informazioni.

more about "Gaza: dopo la tregua", posted with vodpod

¿Sí o No? Bolivians Mobilize for National Vote on New Constitution

by Benjamin Dangl

In the morning on Sunday, January 18, after a heavy rain fell on La Paz, Bolivia, the sun came out, drying the umbrellas of thousands of marchers winding through the city streets.  The mobilization was in support of a new constitution, which is to be voted on this January 25.

Eddie Mamani, a resident of La Paz with an indigenous wiphala flag draped around his neck, spoke loudly to be heard over the brass band playing behind him.  “For too many years we have been exploited by right-wing politicians who do not govern for all Bolivians.  We are marching today for our children and our grandchildren.”

The march, which stretched for some five blocks, was filled with the white, blue, and black flags of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), the party of President Evo Morales.  The sound of fireworks mixed with honking horns from cars and buses waiting for the march to pass.  While posters of Morales bobbed up and down in the crowd, and copies of the new constitution were handed out to onlookers, marchers yelled “Sí, Sí, Sí!  Vamos por el Sí,” urging voters to cast a “Yes” ballot in the upcoming vote.  Polls indicate that the constitution will be approved.

Along with the nationalization of Bolivia’s gas reserves, rewriting the constitution was a major promise of Morales during his 2005 presidential campaign.  The road to this new constitution has been a long, complicated and often violent one.  One key event in this process was the July 2, 2006 election of assembly members to the constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution.  Later, in December of 2007, the new constitution was passed in an assembly meeting in Oruro which was boycotted by opposition members.  After months of street battles and political meetings, the Bolivian congress ratified a new draft of the constitution last October 21.  In many ways, these various steps will culminate in the January 25th vote.

Among other significant changes, the new constitution allows for a broader involvement of the state in the Bolivian economy, including the state’s participation in the gas and oil industry.  It establishes the Bolivian state as plurinacional to reflect the diversity of indigenous and Afro-Bolivian groups in the country.  It formally promotes the official use of the country’s 36 indigenous languages.  The new constitution also grants autonomy to indigenous groups across the nation, enabling them to govern their own communities.  This autonomy for indigenous communities may undermine the power of right-wing prefects in opposition-led departments.  The current constitution also expands the number of seats in the recently opposition-controlled Senate, and other seats are reserved specifically for Senators elected from indigenous communities.

Like many of the constitution’s critics, Rolando, a thirty something resident of La Paz, was not enthusiastic about the extended rights granted to indigenous people.  Rolando, sporting a beard and baseball cap, said he wouldn’t be voting in support of the new constitution because “it was not written for all Bolivians.  It just takes into account the rights of rural and indigenous communities.”  This is an often-heard critique of the constitution.  Yet it doesn’t fully take into account that 62% of the population self-identify as indigenous, and about the same percentage live under the poverty line.  Many who support the new constitution are doing so because the document grants long overdue rights to the “originarios,” indigenous Bolivians who have been marginalized for centuries.

Another point of contention is the way the constitution deals with religion.   The current constitution says, “The State recognizes and upholds the apostolic Roman Catholic religion.  [It] guarantees the exercise of every other cult.”  The new constitution says, “The State respects and guarantees the liberty of religion and spiritual beliefs, in accord with one’s cosmovisión.   The State is independent of religion.”  Many critics, besides fearing the separation of church and state, say this change opens the window for the government to allow gay marriage and legalize abortion.   Unfortunately, nothing indicates that pushing for such much-needed policy changes is on the current government’s agenda.

Under the new constitution, land deemed productive will not be broken up by the government, but unproductive land will be redistributed, and a cap on new land purchases — set either at 5,000 or 10,000 hectares — will be voted on separately.  Land reform is an aspect of the constitution that has been highly criticized by the Bolivian left.  Critics say the constitution should go further in addressing the fact that most of Bolivia’s land is in the hands of just a few wealthy families.  These weak land reforms are considered a major concession to the right wing; much of Bolivia’s fertile land is in the eastern departments, currently controlled by opposition prefects.

In what appears to have been another concession to the opposition, the draft constitution was also changed to prevent Morales from running for two additional terms, as an earlier draft of the constitution allowed.  If the new constitution is approved, Morales will run for his last consecutive term in general elections in December of 2009.

The coming days will be full of marches across the country for and against the new constitution.  Sunday’s mobilization was a preview of things to come.  Max, a participant in the march waving a MAS flag, and who described himself as “just another Bolivian citizen,” said that he is supporting the new constitution because, among the many constitutions which Bolivia has had throughout its history, “this is the best one.”  He also approved of the way the constitution was developed in the constituent assembly and believed it was “written for all Bolivians” and will “help keep our leaders honest.”

One section of this march ended up in a park with a giant blown-up balloon figure of Evo Morales in the middle of it, and dozens of people handing out pamphlets on the new constitution and MAS calendars for the new year.  While one group of people slapped “Sí” bumper stickers on cars in the area, another woman methodically peeled the same stickers off the guard rail of a nearby bridge.

Lourdes Calla, a brown-haired activist in the MAS, waved a wiphala flag and jumped to the rhythm of a nearby chant.  “I am voting in support of the constitution for the equality of all Bolivians — there should be no upper and lower economic class, we’re all Bolivians,” she said.  “This new constitution has been created through a historically democratic process and defends the rights of indigenous and rural communities.  Now is the time to put these rights into practice.”

---

Benjamin Dangl is currently based in Bolivia, and is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press).  He is the editor of TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events, and UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America.