Israel: Kadima

Kadima’s dilemma: what next?
P.R. Kumaraswamy
Indian Express Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST

The good showing of the Kadima (Forward) in the recent Israeli elections raises more questions than answers. At one level, the party formed only a few months ago managed to maintain its unity despite founder Ariel Sharon’s absence from the political scene. With 29 seats it emerged as the largest party in the 120-member Knesset and the main contender to form the next government. The electoral victory of Kadima, however, was a far cry from the 44 seats that were originally projected at the height of Sharon’s popularity before his stroke in December.

This less than impressive victory of Kadima comes against the background of the near total decimation of the Likud, its parent party. With just 12 seats, the Likud has suffered its worst electoral defeat since 1951 and is relegated to the fourth position in the Knesset. Perhaps it is just a matter of time before Benjamin Netanyahu is forced out of its leadership. While the Labour Party headed by former trade union leader Amir Peretz galvanised the social agenda in the election campaign, it was unable to convert this into electoral assets. With 19 seats, the party merely managed to retain its strength in the outgoing Knesset. But considering the defection of some key Labour figures, such as former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, to Kadima, this was no mean achievement.

Despite a not-too-impressive showing, Peretz toyed with the idea of putting together an alternative coalition with the support of right-wing parties. When this did not go well with his voters he backed down to join hands with Olmert to form the next government. The performance of Yisrael Bitenu, headed by Avigdor Liberman, a former Netanyahu aide, and the Pensioners Party have startled many observers. With 12 seats, the former emerged on a par with the Likud and a strong contender for Olmert’s coalition. The Yisrael Bitenu, which enjoys the support and backing of the Russian immigrants, is today vital for the stability of the government. In the past, Sharon often visited Russia. This was partly to earn the trust and support of Russian voters. But the inclusion of Liberman in the government has its problems. He had been virulently hostile to Israel’s Arab citizens and has often been accused of racism by his detractors. His participation in the government would therefore be a negative signal to Israel’s minority population which remains politically marginalised. Moreover, this would also perpetuate the exclusion of Arab and communist parties from the Israeli government. The Arab parties — despite having won 10 seats — are unlikely to be a part of the new government.

The victory of the newly-formed Pensioners Party underscored the social agenda of the Israeli voter. The economic policies, especially those carried out by Netanyahu when he was finance minister, pushed a large segment of the Israeli population below the poverty line. For a long while even the Labour Party abandoned its social welfare character and allowed the ethno-religious Shas party to emerge as the torch-bearer of the welfare agenda. To this day, the Shas party has the support of the development towns and weaker sections. Likewise, the Pensioners Party has managed to attract the support of a wider segment of the population, and emerged as a key player.

Based on past experience, Olmert would be looking to shape a broad coalition that would include the Labour, Pensioners, the religious parties and some right-wing parties. Indeed, with the exception of the Likud and Arab parties, all the others appear to be potential partners in government. A broad-based coalition becomes inevitable if Olmert wants to resolve some of the painful issues confronting Israel today. However, on the critical issue of the peace process the verdict is anything but clear. Some Israeli commentators have viewed the election results as a vote against Olmert’s plan to replicate Sharon’s disengagement plan and carry out similar unilateral Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank. While some of the potential coalition partners are opposed to any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, most are clearly opposed to any unilateral measures. Olmert fought the election by publicly declaring his desire to pursue the unilateral option. This unilateralism, however, has not gone down well with voters. Lacking the strong personality of Sharon, Olmert will not be able to pursue his option seriously.

The day Israel went to the polls, a new Palestinian government headed by the Ismail Haniyeh took over. If the unilateral option is not there, could it be that the electorate was ordering Olmert to seek a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, now headed by Hamas?

The writer teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University.Write to kumaraswamy.pr@gmail.com