Parties and the Party System of Israel — Study Notes

Party Organization

The State of Israel was initially constructed around strong, centralized, ideologically driven parties, especially Mapai/Labor, which controlled government organs, bureaucracy, local authorities, and national institutions. They acted as the dominant mediators between state and society.
Classic mass parties (Duverger) with wide membership (estimated > a quarter of the population), affiliated youth movements, sports clubs, newspapers, magazines, and even socio-economic links to healthcare associations and banks.
In the 1970s, Israeli parties began to decline due to broader, comparative processes: mass media reduced dependence on parties as mediators, civil society grew autonomous (Galnoor), the judicialization of politics emerged (Edelman), and personalized politics allowed citizens to approach individual politicians regardless of party.
Additional drivers of decline included growing public mistrust in parties and electoral reforms that reduced main ruling-party sizes.
The contemporary party system blends old, pre-state formations with newer entrants; both types still map onto the main cleavages of society, though they may have diverged in their resonance with the broader polity.
Party discipline and cohesion in the Knesset have historically been high, with parties remaining the key actors in the legislative arena, even as social influence of parties weakened. Many scholars describe the system as cartel-like inside the state rather than in civil society (Katz & Mair).
The party system is characterized by five camps: dovish-left, hawkish-right, ultra-orthodox, Arab, and socio-economic center. No single camp holds a majority; cross-coalition-building typically requires compromises across several camps.

Party Ideology

Until 1967, the main cleavage paralleled the Left-Right socioeconomic divide (workers’ parties vs citizens’ parties).
The 1967 war altered the dominant dimension of conflict to foreign affairs and security. From the 1970s onward, Left/Right distinctions largely reflected positions on security and the territories captured in 1967.
The dovish (Left) vs hawkish (Right) division remains the central divide, with security, land for peace, and the status of territories at the core of political contest.
The five camps in the Knesset are:
- dovish-left
- hawkish-right
- ultra-orthodox
- Arab
- socio-economic center
Notable parties by camp (examples):
- Dovish/Left: Labor (and its successor Zionist Union; Meretz as a smaller left-wing party)
- Hawkish/Right: Likud; in the past, also hawkish seculars like Yisrael Beiteinu, and religious hawkish parties (HaBait Hayehudi, Tkuma)
- Ultra-orthodox: Shas; United Torah Judaism (UTJ)
- Arab: Hadash, Balad, Ra’am/Ta’al (joined as the Joint List in 2015)
- Center: Kadima (2009), then Yesh Atid (2013), Kulanu (2015); center’s focus shifted to socioeconomic policy rather than formal alignment on security
None of these five camps has a majority on its own; 2009, 2013, and 2015 seat distributions show all five groups together still short of a majority when Arabs are added to the dovish-left camp. In several elections, the ultra-orthodox and hawkish blocs together had a majority, but not in 2015, necessitating cross-party cooperation across ideological lines.
The main historical trend: the security cleavage has shaped party camps more than any other dimension, while the socio-economic center has regained prominence in the 2010s but without dominant control.

The Party System

The Knesset often hosts a large number of parties (often more than a dozen), with, on average, about a dozen that win seats in each election. Most parties fail to survive beyond a decade.
Despite superficial multiparty volatility, stability exists when the system is analyzed by blocs rather than by individual parties. Parties align within longer-standing camp blocs that overlap with entrenched social cleavages.
Early statehood (first three decades): one dominant party (Mapai) and its bloc never dropped below ~47% of votes for the Left and never rose above ~27% for the Right, indicating a stable two-bloc configuration attached to cleavages.
A decisive transformation began in the late 1970s: the dominant party’s core status eroded, and the ultra-orthodox bloc became a pivotal coalition broker between Left and Right.
Mapai’s dominance was reinforced by its central, pivot position in coalitions, its broad appeal, and its ability to form governmental coalitions even without a majority. This produced stability within a proportional system and a relatively moderate political climate for decades.
The chapter delineates four stages of development in the Israeli party system:
1) The first almost thirty years of stability under one-party dominance (Mapai and its successors).
2) An interim transformative period in the mid-1970s.
3) A second stability phase of about twenty years characterized by competitive bipolarity (two major blocs: Left and Right).
4) The ongoing phase of significant and prolonged change, with high fragmentation and dealignment tendencies.
Two key patterns of change: (a) the rise of the security dimension as the main political cleavage, (b) the gradual decline of main parties and the rise of personalized politics and non-party actors.
The dominance of Mapai (and its successors) was one of the main stabilizing forces in the early era, but its collapse triggered a realignment toward a two-bloc system that became more brittle and polarized over time.
From the mid-1990s onward, electoral and political reforms (1992 Basic Law changes) aimed to consolidate two major parties, but fragmentation persisted, and the center failed to consolidate into a single dominant competitor.

Party System Change: Dominant Party Collapse, Competitive Bipolarity, and Dealignment

Party System A: Dominant Party in a Moderate Multiparty System
- A dominant party is one that is larger than its rivals for an extended period and is identified with an epoch; domination provides stability beyond merely holding a majority. Mapai dominated the early Knesset elections through the first eight cycles, often winning more than twice the seats of the second-largest party.
- Mapai’s dominance was due to its central location on the spectrum (moderate Left on socioeconomic issues, middle on security, and alignment with religion/state issues). It was seen as integral to Israel’s independence and founding leadership.
- Domination contributed to stability in a proportional system with a multi-party field.
Party System Change 1: Collapse of Domination
- The decline in Mapai’s dominance began well before electoral defeat. Voter surveys indicate shifting allegiances to the right and away from the dominant party; the rise of the opposition (e.g., Herut/Likud) offered a more mobilizable and hawkish alternative, plus religious and nationalist appeals.
- The 1967 war shifted public opinion toward a security-oriented stance and weakened the middle-ground position that Mapai occupied.
- 1973 election: Labour’s hold weakened; Likud narrowed the gap to about 10% and formed a minimal-winning coalition with the help of coalition partners. Sartori noted a possible trend toward a system with alternative coalitions and a sizeable opposition.
- 1977: Likud and allied religious parties formed a coalition government, marking the first breach of Mapai’s dominance. Since then, Labour has never regained a dominant position, and the party system shifted toward new patterns.
Party System Change 2: Electoral Reform and Its Ramifications
- 1992 reform: Israel introduced direct popular election of the prime minister (two-round absolute majority). The Knesset remained elected via closed-list proportional representation with a 1.5% electoral threshold.
- Expected outcome: further consolidation around two main parties, with alternation of government between blocs.
- 1996 and 1999 elections: largest party’s seat share dropped dramatically (largest party won 34 seats in 1996, then 26 in 1999), indicating a sharp decline in the two-major-party dominance. The combined strength of the two major parties fell to 66 seats in 1996, the lowest since 1961.
- 1996 reform and subsequent reforms led to a new dynamic: the largest party no longer controlled a clear majority; coalitions required cross-cutting support from smaller parties.
- 2001 reform reversal: direct election of the prime minister was abolished, returning to the prior system.
- 2003 results: the two major parties recovered somewhat (largest party up to 38 seats), but the second-largest party continued to lose seats; 2006 saw further declines.
Party System Change 3: Dealignment? (Late 1990s–present)
- The last two decades have been marked by volatility: Netanyahu/Likud and Barak/Labor alternated in government but without stable majorities. Kadima emerged in 2005 as a centrist party and won the 2009 elections but failed to form a governing coalition; by 2013 Kadima collapsed to two seats.
- Likud returned to power in 2009 and then again in subsequent elections, yet the share of seats held by the two largest parties remained below a stable majority. By 2015, parties in the center (e.g., Yesh Atid, Kulanu) rose in prominence, marking a shift back toward a center-left socio-economic emphasis, but security concerns remained paramount.
- The center’s growth was linked to the return of socio-economic concerns to the agenda, particularly after 2003 (entitlements cuts in 2003–2006) and rising poverty and inequality; massive protests occurred in 2011. Yet security remained the top concern for both voters and parties.
- The party system became extremely multi-dimensional and complex, with a drift toward dealignment rather than a clean realignment. The main parties' decline was sharper than in many democracies, signaling a long-term trend toward fragmentation and personalization of politics, with nonparty actors growing in influence.
Consequences for Israeli Politics
- The current system is characterized by a mix of cadre, catch-all, cartel, and post-cartel sectarian parties with a strong emphasis on personalized politics.
- The long-standing central elements of the system shifted from (1) Mapai dominance, (2) socioeconomic cleavages, and (3) satellite coalitions in the Left, to a more nuanced structure with parity between major blocs, dominant security concerns, and cross-ideological coalitions that rely on a center bloc.
- The rise of the center and the return of socio-economic concerns do not displace security as the top priority; instead, they accompany continued security concerns, making the Israeli party system highly multidimensional.

Data and Tables (Key Figures)

Table 1. Percent of Seats Won by Party Groups in the Knesset, 2009–2015
2009: Arab $9$, Left $14$, Center $23$, Right $41$, Orthodox $13$
2013: Arab $9$, Left $22$, Center $18$, Right $36$, Orthodox $15$
2015: Arab $11$, Left $24$, Center $18$, Right $36$, Orthodox $11$
Table 1 source: Knesset data (2009–2015)
Table 2. Percentage of Knesset Seats Won by the Two Largest Parties, 1949–1973
1949: Mapai $38$, 2nd largest $16$
1951: Mapai $38$, 2nd largest $17$
1955: Mapai $33$, 2nd largest $13$
1959: Mapai $39$, 2nd largest $14$
1961: Mapai $35$, 2nd largest $14$
1965: Mapai $38$, 2nd largest $22$
1969: Mapai $47$, 2nd largest $22$
1973: Mapai $43$, 2nd largest $33$
Note: Source data from Knesset records.
Table 3. Left vs Right in Knesset Elections, 1977–1996
1977: Left $48$, Right $52$
1981: Left $45$, Right $55$
1984: Left $49$, Right $51$
1988: Left $46$, Right $54$
1992: Left $51$, Right $49$
1996: Left $47$, Right $53$
Left = Left bloc + Arab bloc; Right = Right bloc + Orthodox bloc
Note: The Democratic Movement for Change (DMC) seats (15) are counted within the Left in 1977–1996, and the DMC later split and moved into coalition dynamics.
Table notes and references
The revised Basic Law (1992) changed the electoral system to a mixed form of parliamentarism and presidentialism; the PM could be elected directly, but cabinet formation required Knesset investiture. The reform was later reversed in 2001.
The analyses reference multiple scholars and dates, including Duverger (1954), Sartori (1976), Katz & Mair (1995), Rahat (2007), Yishai (2001), Kenig & Knafelman (2013), and Kenig & Tuttnauer (2017).

Key Concepts and Formulas

Dominant Party: A party larger than any rival over time, identified with an epoch, and able to stabilize the party system. During Israel’s early decades, Mapai fulfilled this role.
Cartel Party: A party that becomes embedded in the state and governance structures, rather than primarily in civil society (Katz & Mair, 1995). Israeli parties increasingly fit this description in later decades.
Realignment: A substantial shift in the party system’s structure or in blocs following a major political change (e.g., security dimension rising after 1967).
Dealignment: A trend toward weaker ties between voters and traditional major parties, with more fragmentation and cross-cutting coalitions.
Electoral Reform (1992): Introduced direct prime minister elections with a two-round system, while Knesset elections remained proportional representation with a 1.5% threshold. Reversed in 2001.
Direct vs Indirect Prime Minister Elections: The 1992 reform created a direct-endorsement path to the PM; the 2001 reversal returned to parliamentarily chosen leadership.
Threshold: The 1992 reform set the electoral threshold at 1.5\% for Knesset seats.
Doves vs Hawks: The security-oriented vs territorial/defense-oriented divisions that became the primary axis of competition after the 1967 war.
Five Camps (ideological/identity-based): dovish-left, hawkish-right, ultra-orthodox, Arab, socio-economic center.

Connections and Implications

Historical pattern: Israeli party dynamics illustrate how security concerns can supplant traditional socioeconomic divisions as the dominant cleavage, reshaping party alignments and coalition-building strategies.
Institutional reforms in the 1990s intensified the trend toward two large blocs but did not eliminate fragmentation; the center’s rise in the 2010s reflected growing attention to socioeconomic issues and inequality, though security remained paramount.
The Israeli case demonstrates that even in highly pluralistic, proportional systems, stable blocs and coalitions can persist, while the individual parties within blocs experience rapid turnover and volatility.
Ethical and practical implications include representation of minority groups (Arab parties, ultra-orthodox parties) in government coalitions, the balance of secular and religious interests, and the democratic legitimacy concerns arising from persistent fragmentation and dealignment.

Connections to Foundational Principles

Duverger’s hypothesis about dominant parties and multiparty systems helps explain the early stability around Mapai and the later collapse of domination.
Sartori’s framework on party systems provides a lens to analyze the transitions from dominant party to competitive bipolarity and possible dealignment.
The emergence of cartel-like party organization in Israel aligns with Katz & Mair’s theory of modern party phenotypes in advanced democracies.

Quick Reference: Key Terms

Dominant party: A party with disproportionate influence and enduring centrality in a multiparty system.
Cartel party: A party that operates within state institutions, often subordinating societal parties to its influence.
Realignment: Shifts in party blocs or alignment patterns in response to major political changes.
Dealignment: A trend toward fragmentation and weaker ties between voters and traditional major parties.
Two-round absolute majority: A voting system where a candidate must secure an absolute majority in a two-round process to win; used in the directly elected prime minister reform.
Electoral threshold: The minimum share of votes required to win representation in a legislature (in Israel, 1.5\% since 1992).
Five camps: dovish-left, hawkish-right, ultra-orthodox, Arab, socio-economic center.
Bipolarity: A party system characterized by two dominant blocs competing for power.
Center parties: Parties that attempt to bridge Left and Right, often focusing on domestic socio-economic issues; many arose or rose during reform periods but struggled to sustain major party status.

Summary Takeaways

Israel’s party system evolved from a stable, Mapai-dominated era to a highly fragmented, multidimensional system with shifting coalitions and a prominent security dimension.
The shift from mass parties to modern party actors involved institutional changes (media, judiciarization, personalization, reforms) that diminished party power in society while maintaining influence inside the legislature.
The system is characterized by lasting blocs rather than stable parties, with cross-ideological coalitions becoming the norm in practice due to no bloc holding a majority on its own.
The last two decades have seen persistent volatility and a potential dealignment trend, with the center rising in influence and new parties challenging the traditional left-right dichotomy. The question remains: where will Israeli parties and the party system go next?