The results of a recent “trust index” survey reveal far more than the dry numbers they report – which are important in and of themselves. There are broader messages hiding behind the recently published indicators of public trust in the institutions of Israeli democracy, and both George Orwell and Mark Twain would have demanded that we take notice.
Against the backdrop of controversy surrounding judicial reform, a survey was conducted in early May by an independent Israeli polling company to examine the degree of public trust in Israel”s state institutions – the Knesset, the High Court, the President and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The results of the survey, carried out by Direct Polls Ltd. for the Regavim Movement in May 2023, indicate that the Israeli public has far greater trust in the Knesset – by dozens of percentage points – than it does in Israel”s judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the legal counselors in each government ministry who answer to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps even more important than the survey”s findings was the stark contrast with results of another survey, conducted only days earlier by the Israel Democracy Institute. While the results of both surveys are important, the vast disparity between the two surveys” findings is at least as important – and it has everything to do with the truism attributed to Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
The Direct Polls survey asked participants, “How much trust do you have in the members of the Knesset you elected?” 77% of respondents expressed a ‘medium to high degree of trust’ compared to only 21% who indicated they had low to non-existent trust in their elected representatives in the Knesset.
The breakdown of this response is a snapshot of current political realities in Israel: Over 85% of people who voted for “right wing” parties – both secular and religious (Likud, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit and ultra-orthodox voters) expressed confidence in their elected officials. Voters for HaMachaneh HaMamlachti (Benny Gantz”s party, known in English as the National Unity Party), Yair Lapid”s Yesh Atid and Avigdor Lieberman”s Yisrael Beyteinu party expressed confidence at a level of 70 – 80%. The lowest levels of confidence (below 65%) were, in descending order, among voters for Arab parties, the Labor Party (Meirav Michaeli”s Ha”Avodah) and Meretz, which closed the list with only 45% of voters expressing trust in the MKs for whom they voted.
On the other hand, the Israeli Democracy Institute’s survey had shockingly divergent outcomes: The ‘Israel Democracy Index” results for the question of trust in the Knesset indicated that only 14% of Israeli voters have a moderate to high degree of trust in the elected legislature of Israel, while 83% indicated low to non-existent trust.
How can these wildly divergent results be reconciled? As is almost always the case, the different answers are the result of differences built into the questions. The wording of the question posed in The Israel Democracy Institute”s survey referred to the “level of trust in the Knesset” while the more recent “Direct Polls Trust Index” survey examined trust “in the members of the Knesset you elected.”
It should be clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics – Israeli or otherwise – that there is no expectation that conservative voters will trust representatives of left-wing parties, or vice versa voters trust the representatives they elected, the men and women they chose as their messengers. In a democracy, citizens elect people to represent them and their values in the legislature, and entrust them with a mandate to speak for them in matters that touch upon essential or even existential questions and core issues on the public agenda. These representatives are expected to voice the opinions of their electorate, to move legislation and public policy forward through a process in which they may make concessions and achieve consensus with representatives of other electorates within the system – without sacrificing the core principles and ideals of the people who elected them. That”s what democracy is all about, and that is what the Direct Polls survey examined: To what extent do Israeli voters trust the people they sent to parliament to represent them?
Other survey results were equally skewed as a result of manipulative phrasing of the questions: The Direct Polls survey indicates that the Supreme Court is trusted by only 50% of the public: Likud voters expressed only 16% trust in the judiciary, and voters for the Religious Zionist and ultra-Orthodox parties less than 5%, compared to HaMachaneh HaMamlachti, Labor, Yesh Atid and Israel Beyteinu parties with over 80% trust. On the other hand, the purposefully phrased Israel Democracy Institute survey was crafted to justify weakening the powers of the legislative branch and granting excessive powers to the judicial branch. Not surprisingly, the IDI survey results supported the IDI”s stated anti-reform position, and were published under the title “Only a Minority of Israelis Support the Proposed Judicial Overhaul.”
The “damn lies and statistics” aspect of the Israel Democracy Institute’s survey results is unmistakable: The wording of the question regarding the public’s trust in the Knesset insured results that create a false representation of a lack of trust in the members of the Knesset, while at the same time creating a false impression that the public favors the judges of the Supreme Court. The relevant question, which is more closely reflected in the wording of the Direct Polls survey, is the level of the public’s trust in the members of the Knesset chosen by them, and the results prove that an absolute majority of the public trusts its elected officials – a fact that points to a very healthy reality in a parliamentary democracy.
Additional points of comparison between the two surveys are no less instructive – particularly regarding questions that were worded neutrally. Thus, regarding public trust in Israel”s president, the Direct Polls and IDI surveys had similar findings: Likud, Religious Zionism and ultra-Orthodox party voters expressed less than 40% trust, compared to voters of HaMachane HaMamlachti, Yesh Atid and Labor, who expressed over 70% trust. These findings point to a trend of radicalization and growing polarization of positions between the camps, which is hardly a surprise given the protests and the campaign of civil disruption that has supplanted parliamentary debate on substantive issues. This campaign would surely have caught George Orwell”s eye we might imagine his reaction to those who seek to overturn the results of democratic elections and the sovereignty of the people, vested in the parliamentary majority – all under the rallying cry of protecting democracy. If ever there was a case of Orwellian Newspeak, Ehud Barak and Yair Lapid are its Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”
Naomi Linder Kahn is Director of the International Division of Regavim, a public Israeli think tank and watchdog nonprofit dedicated to protecting Israeli sovereignty. An abridged version of this article appeared in Gatestone Institute.
