Arik, what did you do to us?

The political system last week found itself in a nostalgic mood and longing for a far-off period.

The reason: A year has passed since Arik Sharon's first stroke. Politicians on the Left and Right competed over the amounts of superlatives they sought to bestow on the leader who slipped into a coma a year ago and left behind a stunned, confused country – an inefficient country whose rusty, unprepared government arms were fully and pathetically exposed during the 33 days of the Lebanon war.

In retrospect, when we look at Sharon's time in power more critically, it turns out the former prime minister left behind, aside from the sense of lost leadership, quite a few question marks.

At times it appears we're talking about a few too many open questions, particularly in light of the fact that Sharon was considered to be a leader who managed to instill within the Israeli public the elusive, false sense that a person who knows what he's doing is sitting at the helm, a responsible person able to address the country's complex problems, a person who will not ignore the internal rot that has spread through government systems in general and the IDF in particular.

Yet the former prime minister's term in office is starting to be portrayed as a period that is far from being the rosy picture that Sharon's spinmeisters portrayed for five years.

That small group of people who were responsible for his grandpa-like image and turned the blatant undemocratic expression "there's no one but him" to the dominant policy; an agenda whose broad shoulders can handle anything; the national brainwasher. Why Sharon? Because there's no one but him. There's nobody else that can do the job. Everyone else is a nobody, the advisors said. Aside from Sharon. Only Sharon.

Yet a quick glance at reality raises some questions: What kind of job exactly did Sharon do? Aside from giving fatigued citizens the sleepy, warm sense that the ship is sailing through calm waters, the test of result shows that Sharon left behind "scorched earth," to quote several leftist and rightist Knesset members who were not swept by the national outburst of nostalgia.

The prime minister was supposed to ensure that critical things will work, yet in the second Lebanon War it turned out that the army chief appointed by Sharon didn't quite understand the job (Sharon's advisors later admitted that Dan Halutz's appointment was a mistake.)

The army was unprepared for war, the home front functioned thanks to the kindness of thousands of good-hearted citizens and one Gaydamak, and welfare systems were collapsing. And with no connection to the war: The education system is shattered, missiles are hitting north and south Israel, and thousands of Gaza evacuees are still residing in ridiculous mobile homes and looking for work.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are numerous problematic issues that have not yet been exposed; issues that were not addressed properly during Sharon's five years in power.

Undemocratic norms

The political system is also not looking any better because of Sharon. When he ruled over Likud with his advisors and son, Omri, the largest political movement in Israel turned into the country's most hated party, particularly because of the members of its central committee and the image they were labeled with, and because of the kind of Knesset members who entered parliament due to all kinds of cost-benefit considerations.

Sharon wanted to shake off this party and its central committee members, accused them of corruption and flawed norms, but forgot to mention who was responsible for this blowing up in his face. He forgot to mention who supported the shady deals, the handing out of jobs and posts, and who got tens of thousands of people to join the party even though any connection between them and politics is certainly coincidental. Sharon also forgot to mention who created the monster.

Sharon founded Kadima in order to escape Likud corruption and run away from fighting against political pressures, yet we must not forget that the one who undermined democratic norms more than anyone was Sharon himself. He crudely trampled on democratic decisions taken by his party's institutions and members and fired ministers and deputy ministers who refused to tow the party line.

Whatever was inconvenient for Sharon was trampled on and marginalized. Those who did not follow the leader's desires were tossed into history's dumpster. Knesset members and ministers turned during Sharon's time into pawns, voting fingers that are counted at the back of the Knesset plenum.

Therefore, a year after he became ill, we must look back at Sharon's time in power soberly and critically. We cannot use all kinds of "senses" to write history, yet for the time being we're only left with that "sense" that Sharon instilled: A sense of security, leadership, and stability. Yet it was only a sense, and a false one at that.