The Problematics of Policy-Making: Foreign and Security Issues in Israel's 1988 Election
| Published date | 01 March 1991 |
| Author | Mordechai Nisan |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1991.tb00584.x |
| Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1991),
XXXIX,
122-134
The Problematics
of
Policy-Making:
Foreign and Security Issues in
Israel's
1988
Election
MORDECHAI
NISAN
The Hebrew University
of
Jerusalem
Based
on
the assumption that foreign and defence policy grows out of the domestic
political arena, this paper examines the
1988
elections in Israel with a particular focus
on
the territorial issue of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The two major parties,
Likud and Labour, share certain fundamental views, and this fact contributed to the
formation of a National Unity Government during
1984-88.
Yet they also differ
markedly in terms of ideological outlook and more specifically in policy towards
peace-making with the Arabs and the future of the territories. The election campaign
reflected the differences and incompatibilities between the two major parties, while the
results indicated
a
political stalemate. The domestic party arena in Israel has not
produced any clear long-term strategy regarding peace and the territories. This
deadlock suggests incoherence in the Cabinet, the impotence of the legislature and the
likelihood that external events alone can alter the political status quo.
The idea that foreign policy derives significantly from the character of domestic
politics has become a compelling explanation in international relations.' Instead
of positing two disconnected political systems, the domestic and foreign realms
are seen to merge, such that external policy becomes a subset of local affairs.
More particularly, the quality of the internal political culture regarding parties
and ideologies provides the normative values of national thinking concerning
notions of authority and power, community and compromise, conflict and war.
In assuming that foreign policy is thus
a
projection
of
domestic politics, it
becomes imperative to examine if, indeed, foreign policy can at all be liberated
from its local circumstances. If it cannot, then foreign policy as an independent
activity of goal-setting and strategic planning remains an abortive enterprise.
Democratic states are especially vulnerable to the pre-emption of foreign
policy-making by domestic party affairs. Party politics, subject to popular
opinion and its transient moods, dominates the political realm. Periodic election
contests obligate parties to secure short-term successes; any reflections on grand
strategy can seldom be translated into the language of specific policy decisions.
As
a result, power struggles at home can prove to be more tenacious, at times,
than the commitment and capacity to resolve problems abroad. Only very great
'
A
seminal work in this field was James N. Rosenau (ed.),
Domestic Sources
ofForeign
Policy
(New York, The Free Press,
1967),
especially Ch.
2.
0032-3217/91/01/0122-13/$03.00
0
1991
Political
Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial