“Sharon’s popularity can also be explained by the psychological dynamics of abuse,” states the clinical psychologist Yehoshua Lavi in an article in the Israeli daily “Haaretz”.
In a fascinating article, Lavi explains why the people of Israel have again elected Ariel Sharon and the Likud Party despite the fact that Israel’s economic, political and military situations have rapidly deteriorated during Sharon’s term as Prime Minister. Lavi quotes a letter written by an abused child to his abusing father in jail in which he writes, “My dear father, we missed you so over Shabbat.” This, according to Lavi, is not a rare phenomenon in psychology. Children who have experienced abuse cling with love and adoration to their abusers.
Lavi argues that this is partly why the 2003 election results are what they are. He suggests that a population that is mistreated by a regime cannot manifest a political counter stand through the act of voting. Regimes, he says, that abuse their people exist in totalitarian countries in which disagreement or criticism are illegitimate and usually prohibited. The real danger, according to Lavi, lies in the possibility that the group psychology of the majority of Israelis will start to resemble that of civilians in totalitarian states. These countries seemingly have an orderly parliament but are not democratic in behavior.
In countries where the idea of democracy is more advanced, such as the U.S and Great Britain, national unity governments are not established, even when the country is in a state of war. Everyone pulls their weight for the war effort while at the same time continuing to argue their standpoint. Lavi cautions that if we do not take care to guard our Israeli “civil spirit”, we will continue to decline in a vicious circle of intimidation, suppression and abuse.
While Lavi’s article offers an original and appealing viewpoint concerning why Sharon was re-elected as Prime Minister, it is hard to accept his theory “as is.” Israel has never chosen a prime minister for a second term if he or she did not demonstrate efficiency in their first term. Ever since the tables of the regime were first turned, back in 1977 when the Labor party fell and the Likud came to power, there have been four changes of government, all of which took place in the nineties, as control of the government alternated between those two parties. Therefore, one cannot say that the “abused Israeli child” admires its leaders blindly. Historically, if the people judge a regime to be lacking, it is replaced.
If so, the answer must lie elsewhere. In my opinion, the answer lies in the alternative, or rather, the lack of one. Amram Mitzna, the Labor Party’s new leader and the Mayor of Haifa, did not give the impression that he can get Israel out of its current rut. It appears that Israelis prefer to stick to the devil they know – namely Sharon – rather than lay bets on the devil they’re not familiar with and whose abilities were hard to assess during the brief span of two months since the beginning of the election campaign.
According to some Israeli estimations, Sharon’s new government — regardless of the make-up of the coalition — will have a hard time holding out for the full four years. If Sharon doesn’t find a solution to the security problem through some form of compromise with the Palestinians, I believe that we will witness another turn in the regime. If Mitzna is still leader of the Labor party at that time, it will fall to him to seize the helm and alter Israel’s course.