RIVKA BAR-YOSEF
527
popular demands. So they don't really promise anything, but they are quick
to say that they approve ofsuch solutions and don't react in a well thought–
out way.
One of these problems concerns the kind of democratic system Israel
should have. I still don't know why we have one hundred and twenty
representatives. Our party system and our electoral system were taken
over from the time of the Zionist parties, within the Histadrut, the General
Federation of Labor, and outside it. For a time,
this
system worked, and we
believed that it
was
the best one. It turned out not to work, or to work badly.
I shall mention three of the questions related to this issue. These are being
discussed now, and popular movements are pushing to resolve them.
First, there is the question of the constitution. Israel does not have a
constitution because when the first government tried to formulate one, it
be–
came clear that the type of constitution desirable for a secular democratic
society would not be acceptable to the religious parties. There were disputes
about some clauses of human rights, the equality of the sexes and the
primacy of the legislative and judicial authority of the Knesset and the secular
courts versus the authority of the religious establishment. Ben-Gurion
preferred national consensus to a constitution and proposed a "Declaration of
Independence" which includes general statements ofbasic values, such as
"nondiscrimination because of race, religion, or sex." This, indeed, was
unanimously accepted.
At
the same time the partial autonomy of the religious
establishments of all the religious denominations, guaranteed ftrst by the
Turkish and later by the British rulers of the country,
was
maintained. With
few restrictions, such as the prohibition of polygamy and child marriage, the
whole area of personal status was left in the hands of religious courts. The
hiatus left by the lack of a constitution is somewhat ftlled by a series of basic
laws.
As
in many new countries the legal system is built step by step. Not
having a constitution means that basic values are inferred only, but there can
be no reference to a formal document which constitutes a leading and
controlling force. A group oflaw professors decided that having a constitution
would provide a miraculous cure for the legal dilemmas of Israel. A
constitution might be helpful
if
and when the political power balance is
changed. At present the situation is similar to that at the beginning of the
state. If the constitution is one accepted by the religious parties, who now
have an even stronger hold, then it
will
include a clause maintaining the dual
judicial system, and there
will
not be accorded equal rights to women or to
the various non-orthodoxJewish movements.
This
type
ofconstitution would
not enjoy the approval of the secular population. There
is
a second aspect of
the secular-religious controversy. Autonomous religious courts are considered
by the non-Jewish religious minorities as their unalienable rights enjoyed from
before the existence of the state of Israel. I doubt whether they can be taken
away peacefully now. A new constitution, however formulated, would not be
