Unity equals corruption

National unity government a code-word for stagnation, conservatism

Reuters | Published: 12.02.08, 17:45

It is fascinating to follow the metamorphosis (rhetoric one at least) undergone by Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu since he first competed for the premiership in 1996.

The “old” Netanyahu highlighted separatist and nationalistic propaganda (“Netanyahu is good for the Jews,” “the Left forgot what it means to be Jewish,” and similar divisive treats.). Yet at this time, there is no Netanyahu speech, deceleration, or public appearance that does not contain the phrases “national unity,” “broad national consensus,” “cohesion,” etc.

Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is playing a similar game, although in a milder manner. After all, she needs to slam Netanyahu, who for the time being and according to all indications will be defeating her and also dismantling her party, which has no reason for existence if it’s not in power.

Meanwhile, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak is also part of this sentimental unity discourse, even though his relevance is becoming similar to that of Pensioners’ Party leader Rafi Eitan.

In short, everyone learned to regularly identify the Center, highlight centrism endlessly, and not to move an inch from there. The problem is that the center is the most atrophied, boring, and listless place in all areas of life.

One of the trademarks of the death of politics and ideological quarrels is the fact that the word “unity” casts a spell on the Israeli public. At any given time, to our regret, there is a majority that supports the establishment of various kinds of unity governments. This attests to conservatism and stagnation within society and an in ability to move anywhere. “Unity,” “cohesion,” “one nation,” “peace at home” and various sweet-sounding phrases are in fact code-words for conservatism and stagnation.

Illusion of tranquility

National unity is a relatively rare political recipe, which most enlightened states adamantly refuse to adopt, including ones facing social schisms and gaps. However, around here unity has become a repeated model. The idea of sharing the governmental loot among the large parties, which are in fact supposed to argue over ideas, has turned into an almost dogmatic and repetitive model here.

However, while unity governments may create an illusion of political tranquility and the ability to promote issues that narrow governments would find difficult to advance, history proves the opposite.

In the first unity government (1984-1988,) then-Foreign Minister Peres signed the “London Agreement” with Jordan’s King Hussein, but Shamir and Rabin were quick to distance themselves from it. On the security front, the late Rabin led a very brutal policy in a desperate attempt to suppress the first Intifada. Later Labor was banished from the government, which became narrow and Likudnik in essence. In short, the partnership created nothing.

And here is the first seeming paradox: The Likud’s Moshe Arens, who replaced Rabin as defense minister, led a sane and liberal policy in the occupied territories. He did not raze one home, and even backed the IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza. Meanwhile, Shamir went to the Madrid Conference and for the first time agreed to the principle of land for peace.

Meanwhile, the late Rabin, as the head of a very narrow government backed by Hadash and the Arab parties, signed the controversial Oslo agreement, but taught us that a narrow government dares to do more, achieves more, and mostly is able to move somewhere.

President Shimon Peres, who served as Labor chairman or Rabin’s deputy, and later Ehud Barak, simply pulverized Labor and eliminated its chances of rebuilding and formulating an identity and character. Peres views the opposition as a sort of syphilis almost. As a person who for most of his career was an ambitious and talented man of action, he viewed the opposition as a dull theater lacking any significance.

The problem with this perception is serious and existential: In the absence of significant, real, and effective opposition, there is no resistance to the government in fact. This weakens other critical systems, such as the legal establishment for example. In short, national unity corrupts.

Only three years ago, at the end of the previous elections campaign, commentators were quick to bury

Likud in general and Netanyahu in particular. The threat of putsch was hovering above his head. Given Netanyahu’s current status, we learned that there is no stock that gains value in politics faster than serving in the opposition and showing a principled refusal to join the government.

For the Labor party this insight is already late and needless. However, political life shall continue, and anyone who wishes to succeed should internalize the following principle: Those who are unwilling to view the opposition deserts and political winters as a mission, won’t win the premiership. Besides, why fight for a small share of power that in fact prompts a process of extinction, when with a little patience and ideology one can win the entire jackpot?