Window on Israel: 'Distortion of democracy' or faulty vision?

We are hearing, once again, that the results of the Israeli election are a "distortion of democracy." 
 
The complaints vary depending on who's doing the complaining. One problem this time, as on other occasions, is the weight of religious parties. On their menu are increased funding for religious schools, increased family payments that will benefit the large families of religious Jews (as well as Arabs, whose parties are allied with the ultra-Orthodox on this issue), opposition to civil marriage and their usual opposition to non-Orthodox Judaism.
 
Another problem is the weight of right-of-center Likud, Israel Beiteinu and National Unity.
 
What those who talk of "distortions of democracy" really mean is that they aren't happy with the election results.
 
As far as I know, there is no democracy that isn't distorted in one way or another.
 
Look at the United States, as an example familiar to many of us. Its democracy is "distorted" on account of the equal representation of the states in the Senate. This gives the residents of sparsely populated states more weight than those of states with large populations. It's also "distorted" by other features of its federal system, such as those which allow the authorities of individual states to rule as they wish about access to alcohol, constraints on abortion, what schoolbooks may say about evolution, how much is spent on education and many other issues. For some Americans, it is a distortion of democracy that environmentalists or supporters of Israel have too little or too much weight in Congress and the administration, depending on who is up and who is down.
 
Each democracy has its "rules of the game," and none confer true equality or complete freedom. Some are always more equal than others.
 
The rules of the game in Israel, and how they work to affect government, are a reflection of its history, its population and the issues that lead voters to choose one or another of the options available. In this general trait, Israel is similar to the three dozen or so other countries that qualify as democracies.
 
Israel's system of proportional representation is about as undistorted a democracy as is possible to achieve. About 30 parties run in each election, and 10 or so usually get the two percent minimum required to get into the Knesset.
 
The number of seats parties have in the Knesset reflects divisions among the population. Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox parties have enough to protect their turf, and Arab rejectionists get their share. In recent years, the mostly Jewish secular parties' representation has been such that no one of them was clearly dominant, largely on account of disagreements among the voters on how to deal with the issue of Palestinian statehood.
 
Israelis urge reform, and occasionally the Knesset tinkers with the details. One prominent change gave each citizen two votes: one for prime minister, and one for a party list of Knesset members. This system prevailed in the elections of 1996, 1999 and 2001. Opponents called the reform a failure, and cited the distortions they said it created. The Knesset reverted to a single vote for a party list and a conventional parliamentary arrangement. Now, as before 1996, the Knesset must approve which of its members will be the prime minister, and the government he or she offers.
 
The advantage of keeping things as they are is that players know the rules, and how they can maximize their advantages. When the rules change, the complications of politics may produce disappointing surprises.
 
A Russian friend thinks Israel is undemocratic because he can't marry a non-Jew. Russia was more democratic, he says.
 
I remind him that he can marry whoever he wants outside of Israel, register the marriage here, and live happily ever after. A Cypriot marriage is likely to be less expensive than an Israeli marriage. A couple can probably do the whole thing, including the 30-minute flight, for less than $1,000, without having to feed hundreds of guests. A Jewish man with the name of Cohen cannot marry a Jewish divorcee in Israel. But he can do it elsewhere and register the marriage here. A Justice of the Supreme Court found himself in that situation, did what he had to, and didn't suffer in public.  I don't know if he suffered at home.
 
Democracy concerns procedure and not outcome. Its essential ingredients are wide access to the vote and media, ample opportunities to persuade and criticize, accurate counting and reporting of the results and the acceptance of the outcome by the losers.
 
By "distortions of democracy," some people mean "violations of civil rights." This opens the issue of "what are civil rights?" In Israel, and in other democracies, this question is subject to dispute, and decisions on it are made by the legislature, administration and courts.
 
Many Israelis may be unhappy with the results of a given election, or what the winners do with their power. They should try harder next time, or realize that their desires do not have the support they would like.