|
With the spectre of comatose Ariel Sharon looming over the Israeli elections, it is not surprising the turnout should have been so desultory. At just over 63 per cent, it was the lowest in Israel's history and nearly 6 percentage points lower than the 2003 elections. It could be construed, therefore, that voter apathy marginally exceeded disinterest, which is to be expected on examination of what was on offer.
The electorate had 30 different parties to choose from, although with some the differences were so marginal as to be almost non-existent and certainly likely to confuse even the keenest follower of the political scene in Israel. Going into the elections, most people would have thought there to be three main contenders: Likud (right wing), Labour (left wing) and the newly formed Kadima or "Forward" party (centrist). If anything, it was seen as a battle between the Likud, founded by Ariel Sharon all those years ago, and Kadima, also founded by Ariel Sharon some four months back. However, as the votes turned out, Likud was pushed into fifth place, behind the ultra-orthodox Shas party and the far-right Russian emigrees party, Yisrael Beitenu. There is a certain irony in the success of the Kadima party, which succeeded in bringing in people from both sides of the political spectrum. Sharon, when he announced the new party, always claimed that his thinking was more in line with the people than Benjamin Netanyahu, the new leader of the Likud party. It would seem Sharon, ever the wily politician, was more in tune with the public than many people gave him credence for. Now the new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who has been acting prime minister since Sharon's hospitalisation, faces the reality of forming a coalition government in a country that causes more consternation than any other in the Middle East.
|
