Although Parliamentary PR systems have been systematized in the literature as the “most” democratic regime, viewing the case of Israel through the lens of modernization theory as well as Bellin’s requisites for authoritarianism, it is evident that the suppression of women and minorities, as well as the existence of a credible threat provides plausible explanation for a drop in democracy over the time span of 1967-1999.
Due to its unique beginning, Israel’s fluctuations in democracy cannot be analyzed without first looking the country’s creation. Israel was officially founded in 1948 after WWII left a large amount of European Jewish people searching for a place to call home. While the United States was able to take a small portion of the Jews, …show more content…
The Polity IV index gives insight into the level of democracy and authoritarian trends in a given country over time. While the index is flawed in that it does not account for participation within the democracy, Polity IV is useful in shows a general trend of overall democracy within the state. Polity IV grades democracy on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being fully democratic. For Israel, from 1948 onward, the country mostly resides at the 10 marker, which means that it is fully democratic. However, during the time span of 1967-1999, Israel dips to around a level of 9, which is meant to signify a slight shift away from democracy. While Israel does not shift away from democracy during this time period, the 30-year span can be defined by a period of great conflict with Palestine. The Israeli case is inherently unique in that international conflict bleeds into internal conflict, which is reflected by its overall Polity score. The initial dip in regime change occurs in 1967, which can be attributed to the Six-Day war between Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Israel. During this war, Israel won control over the Egyptian armed forces by using surprise and guerilla warfare. The war resulted in the broadening of Israeli territory into the Gaza Strip. Additionally, the war ended with a coalition of Arab states …show more content…
First, Seymour Martin Lipset states the argument for modernization as the major deciding factor. Lipset claims that democracy has basic requisites that are consistent among all successful democracies. Lipset states, “Two principal complex characteristics of social systems will be considered here as they bear on the problem of stable democracy: economic development and legitimacy. These will be presented as structural characteristics of a society which sustain a democratic political system. After a discussion of the economic development complex (comprising industrialization, wealth, urbanization, and education)” (Lipset 1959, 71). It is important to note that Lipset states these as requisites, that even if fulfilled, will not automatically result in democracy. However, without these requisites, democracy will not be achieved. Second, Fish and Michael Ross countries that are dependent on natural resources are structured in such a way that there is a disconnect between the people and those in power, which leads to a lower likelihood of democracy existing in these regions. As Michael Ross states in his paper, the Middle East possesses the rentier effect, which allows
Due to its unique beginning, Israel’s fluctuations in democracy cannot be analyzed without first looking the country’s creation. Israel was officially founded in 1948 after WWII left a large amount of European Jewish people searching for a place to call home. While the United States was able to take a small portion of the Jews, …show more content…
The Polity IV index gives insight into the level of democracy and authoritarian trends in a given country over time. While the index is flawed in that it does not account for participation within the democracy, Polity IV is useful in shows a general trend of overall democracy within the state. Polity IV grades democracy on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being fully democratic. For Israel, from 1948 onward, the country mostly resides at the 10 marker, which means that it is fully democratic. However, during the time span of 1967-1999, Israel dips to around a level of 9, which is meant to signify a slight shift away from democracy. While Israel does not shift away from democracy during this time period, the 30-year span can be defined by a period of great conflict with Palestine. The Israeli case is inherently unique in that international conflict bleeds into internal conflict, which is reflected by its overall Polity score. The initial dip in regime change occurs in 1967, which can be attributed to the Six-Day war between Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Israel. During this war, Israel won control over the Egyptian armed forces by using surprise and guerilla warfare. The war resulted in the broadening of Israeli territory into the Gaza Strip. Additionally, the war ended with a coalition of Arab states …show more content…
First, Seymour Martin Lipset states the argument for modernization as the major deciding factor. Lipset claims that democracy has basic requisites that are consistent among all successful democracies. Lipset states, “Two principal complex characteristics of social systems will be considered here as they bear on the problem of stable democracy: economic development and legitimacy. These will be presented as structural characteristics of a society which sustain a democratic political system. After a discussion of the economic development complex (comprising industrialization, wealth, urbanization, and education)” (Lipset 1959, 71). It is important to note that Lipset states these as requisites, that even if fulfilled, will not automatically result in democracy. However, without these requisites, democracy will not be achieved. Second, Fish and Michael Ross countries that are dependent on natural resources are structured in such a way that there is a disconnect between the people and those in power, which leads to a lower likelihood of democracy existing in these regions. As Michael Ross states in his paper, the Middle East possesses the rentier effect, which allows