Party at a Crossroads
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's defeat in the Likud Convention
two weeks ago came as no surprise. Before the party
referendum on the disengagement plan he declared the results
would be binding, and then went back on his word, but this
time he announced in advance that the vote would not obligate
him to adopt a certain course in the coalition negotiations.
Instead he made clear he would do as he pleases -- for "the
good of the nation" of course.
Unlike with the referendum, this time the Sharon camp
organized full steam. His supporters, led by his son Omri,
made every effort to win the vote and to spare the Prime
Minister from a second consecutive defeat, but to no avail.
It seems the forces opposing him, i.e. Binyamin Netanyahu and
Silvan Shalom, were too big and powerful.
A few high-level ministers such as Mofaz, Olmert, Livnat and
Livni stood by his side, but in today's Likud this is not
enough.
Rather than coming out against Sharon publicly Netanyahu kept
a low profile, quietly saying his stance on bringing in
Labor, which opposes his economic program, was well-known.
This was enough to let his supporters know how the boss
expected them to vote.
Silvan Shalom took a big gamble and won. Once considered
Sharon's leading supporter, this time Shalom went against him
and relations between the two reached a new low. Had Sharon
won, Shalom's future at the top of Likud ranks would have
been in jeopardy. Now, however, even Sharon realizes he won't
be able to throw Shalom out of the government entirely. If he
wants to remove him from the Foreign Ministry to make room
for Peres, he will have to compensate him with another
respectable portfolio consistent with his standing in the
party.
After taking a beating for the second time, Sharon will
invariably try to figure out how he lost his party's backing
despite broad public support. Inevitably, he will reach the
conclusion that if he wants to win in the future he needs
either Shalom or Netanyahu on his side.
The Likud now stands at a crossroads. It is a party that
could definitely form a rift and a party whose decisions are
losing significance.
Questions in the Knesset
According to Knesset regulations, when MKs submit questions
ministers must take the Knesset podium within 21 days to
provide answers. They can also request a second 21-day
extension and then one week more if necessary.
In practice, government ministers are in no rush to reply.
Sometimes they answer months later when the matter has become
so irrelevant that addressing it elicits bursts of
laughter.
MKs claim almost none of the ministers bother to respond to
questions in a timely fashion. Some say that by the time they
receive an answer they have forgotten that they even
submitted a question. Now MKs are saying the time has come to
rectify the situation.
One proposal was to impose sanctions against ministers who do
not provide answers on time, such as not allowing them to
raise topics during plenum sessions or to ban them from
proposing legislation for a certain period of time.
"The MKs often do not have information on what takes place in
the government ministries," explains one Knesset member. "The
questions are an essential means of communication and
disclosure between the Knesset and the government, and that
makes them so critical for the sake of democracy in order to
carry out improvements and transformation in this
institution."
Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin also has contentions regarding
the lackadaisical attitude towards questions, but for a
totally different reason. Rivlin says that when the ministers
arrive at the plenum to reply, the MKs generally do not take
the trouble to come and hear the answer, which just gets
dictated directly into the protocols. Rivlin maintains this
is an act of scorn by the MKs toward the ministers and the
parliamentary tool known as the "question," for it precludes
the possibility of holding a debate on the subject through
follow-up questions.
Not only are the replies long in coming but in most cases
they are also late in the day, when the majority of MKs are
no longer in the building. Rivlin hopes to rectify this by
giving questions higher preference in the daily agenda,
scheduling them for 4:00 p.m. when the Knesset is generally
full, thereby resurrecting the institution of "questions,"
which once held a place of honor in the Israeli parliamentary
system and was used by MKs as a key tool.
