Weekly thought: is democracy the right policy?

I didn't update about our lives in the previous week, because I was simply too busy to do that. For the same reason, you can also assume that our lives are as boring as can be, and I will not bore you with the minutiae that surround them. The only interesting thing that happened this week were the recurrent Tornado sirens that were sounded all around our area. It appears that whenever there is a thunderstorm in the area these sirens go off, and they sound exactly like air raid sirens. Of course, the alarms were false, and as I understand they usually are. My students and I have concluded that they are another form of the story about the boy who cried "wolf". Instead of a weekly summary you're all invited to share my "weekly thought".

Thus, the only interesting thing about the previous two weeks were the Israeli elections. My views on the success of Israeli democracy have long been known, even before the outcome of this elections, which is again: total stagnation to the point that no one even knows who won. In general, I think that a democracy that generates 5 elections in 10 years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009) is spinning out of control. Moreover, the rate at which elections are held is increasing, as in the previous two decade only 5 were held (1981, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996). Respectively, the size of the biggest party in the elections is gradually shrinking, from only once below 40 seats (34 in 1996, 44 in 1992, 40 in 1988, 44 in 1984, and 48 in 1981) to only once above 30 seats (28 in 2009, 29 in 2006, 38 in 2003, 2001 elections were for the prime-minister office alone, and 26 in 1999), leaving the Knesset to be ever more divided between factions. Furthermore, the winning side, namely the side that formed the government, has changed in all but one of the last 5 elections (right in 1996, left in 1999, right in 2001 (only PM), right in 2003, center-left in 2006, and right again in 2009) whereas the government was formed by the same side between 1977 and 1999 (with the exception of national unity government led jointly by Likud and Maarach in 1984). In conclusion, the political system in Israel is all but stable, which makes it impossible to generate any kind of movement in any direction, and I don't just relate to Peace vs. War. Think, for example, about the number of national projects done in the first 2-3 decades of the country, and how many national projects have been started and finished since. It's easy: none were started in the last decade or two. I think that the last national project (although controversial one) was the Lavie. In conclusion, I think that the Israeli democratic system has failed, caused us nothing but painful and pricey stagnation, cost us much factionalism and self-hatred, and should be changed. The question is "change to what?" or "do you have another idea?".

Well, I don't. I think that democracy cannot work in any case, but I can neither prove it nor suggest a better way. I can only offer the words of one of my favorite authors, Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote in the book "Glory Road" the following paragraphs. Before them I'll just explain the circumstances: the main character joins an adventure in which he helps the "Empress of the 20 known universes" together with another character, Rufo, who is a comparative-culturolgist: he studies different cultures in the variety of universes. In one of their talks the hero repeats the words of another comparative-culturoligst (Nebbi) who think that the American democracy (which works a bit better than our own) is a "noble experiment", which is bound to fail. This is a quote from Rufo's reply:

"...Nebbi was right. Except that he sees only the surface. Democracy can't work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that's all there is - so Democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.

But a democratic form of government is okay, as long as it doesn't work. Any social organization does well enough if it isn't rigid. The framework doesn't matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing - except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."

I would add that a similar notion of "looseness in government" should be used when thinking about the perfect organizational structure of a company. I guess I would not be alone in that thinking.