That's like emptying the ashtray when a car breaks down. Now something similar is happening.
THE POLLS show that the public has no confidence in the leadership. But the public does not say: We voted for these leaders, so we are to blame. That would be an unpleasant admission. What they say is: It's not our fault. So who is to blame? The "system", of course.
That's because our parliamentary democracy does not assure the Prime Minister a full term of four years. He can fall before that. It also compels him to include in his government leaders of the coalition parties, even if they are quite incompetent to direct their ministries. The Prime Minister cannot plan long-term policy, nor put capable experts in charge of the ministries.
THIS IS the purest snake oil - one bottle to cure all illnesses, without pain and without delay.
First of all, one cannot simply transfer a political system from one country to another. Every state has its own tradition, its own specific culture, its own social set-up. A political system must grow from within. It cannot be imposed on another people. When one tries to do that, the society adapts it to its own requirements and changes it beyond recognition. (Japan after World War II springs to mind.) Only out-of-touch professors in ivory towers could imagine that the illnesses of a society can be cured by an ideal political system copied from another country.
That has already been proven in Israel: under the influence of some professors, our "system" was changed some years ago. It was decided that the Prime Minister would be elected directly, separately from the Knesset elections. But soon it became obvious that this system was worse than the one before it. So the Wise Ones took counsel and changed the whole thing back again.
But there's no need for us to go through that experience ourselves. In order to appreciate the advantages of the presidential system, it's enough to look at the situation in its homeland: the United States.
What has this system achieved there? Indeed, the president has at least four full years, but many would add "alas!" When it is discovered that a complete idiot has been elected and embroils his country in disastrous adventures, he cannot be removed. In our parliamentary system, as in the United Kingdom, a Prime Minister can be removed with comparative ease. Tony Blair will be gone within a year, while George Bush serves out his full term.
Are the American ministers more competent than ours? Is Donald Rumsfeld less of a disaster than Amir Peretz?
Moreover, in order to be elected president, a candidate needs huge sums of money. Such heavy money can come only from interest groups, lobbies and large corporations. The American system is corrupt to the core - a corruption so deep and wide, it makes the sins of Olmert & Co. look innocent.
BUT LOGIC is not the key to this discussion, because the demand for system change is serving as a cover for something much more sinister: the call for a Leader.
Such calls always arise in times of crisis. When there is a feeling of defeat and a climate of distrust of the old leadership, people long for a strong father. Democracy looks weak and rotten, especially faced with the legend that the politicians have "prevented the army from winning." A strong leader solves problems with an iron fist. A policy of dialogue and agreements is something for weaklings.
It must be clear: the proposal to adopt the presidential system is nothing other than a disguised call for an all-powerful leader. One has only to look at those who propose it.
The foremost advocate of "system change" is Avigdor Liberman, the leader of the "Israel Our Home" party, composed mainly of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. This is a party of the radical Right - to use an understatement. In other countries, they might be called by another name.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
