No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
Without knowing its exact dimensions, political scientists have taken government to be the primary unit for the study of political behavior. No matter how far modern analysis appears to be from the formalism embodied in mere descriptions of government, political science still assumes that the institutions of government form the major system within which political activity is embedded.1 Government is understood not simply as the organization ordering political activity, but also as the foundation of the moral community within which people live. Government not only symbolizes but also defines appropriate political behavior, proper political associations, and, of course, legality and illegality. Government is thought to define right by virtue of its possession of legitimacy, a power that holds people together through their adherence to a public morality supposedly articulated and certified through the government.2 Political scientists attribute legitimacy to governments when it appears that the community over which such governments rule is cohesive. The legitimacy of government is understood as an isomorphism of the coherence of the political community.
1 Even the series of political studies inspired by Gabriel Almond and published by Little, Brown focuses heavily on government. See especially Fein, Leonard, Politics in Israel (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967).Google Scholar
2 This is true of such different approaches to the study of legitimacy as Flathman, Richard E., Political Obligations (New York: Atheneum, 1972)Google Scholar and Lane, Robert E., Political Ideology (New York: The Free Press, 1962).Google Scholar
3 Easton, David states it most forcefully in The Political System (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 137.Google Scholar
4 Pitkin, Hanna, ‘Obligation and Consent’, Part II, in Concepts in Social and Political Philosophy, ed. Flathman, Richard E. (New York: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 201–219 at p. 201.Google Scholar
5 For a survey of the literature, see Friedman, Richard B., ‘On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy,’ in Flathman, Concepts in Social and Political Philosophy, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
6 Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), I, 212 ff.Google Scholar
7 Pitkin, ‘Obligation and Consent,’ pp. 210 ff.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., p. 203.
9 Friedman, ‘On the Concept of Authority.’Google Scholar
10 Barker, Ernest, ed., The Politics of Aristotle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
11 Laponce, J. A., ‘Political Community, Legitimacy and Discrimination,’ British Journal of Political Science, 4, 2 (04 1974), 121–137 at p. 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp. 345–361.Google Scholar
13 See Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan; John Locke, The Second Treatise on Governinent; and J. J. Rousseau, The Social Contract.Google Scholar
14 Hobbes, Thomas, The Leviathan (Baltimore: Penguin, 1968), pp. 247–251.Google Scholar
15 Locke, Two Treatises of Government, p. 386.Google Scholar
16 Rousseau, J. J., The Social Contract (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1950), pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar
17 Pitkin, ‘Obligation and Consent,’ p. 208.Google Scholar
18 Stiliman, Peter G., ‘The Concept of Legitimacy,’ Polity, 7, 1 (Fall, 1974), 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Easton, David, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 127.Google Scholar
20 Easton, The Political System, p. 137.Google Scholar
21 Danet, Brenda and Hartman, Harriet, ‘Coping with Bureaucracy: The Israeli Case,’ Social Forces, 51, 1 (09, 1972), 7–22 at p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Yosef, Rivkah Bar, ‘The Moroccans: Background to the Problem,’ in Integration and Development in Israel, ed. Eisenstadt, S. N., Yosef, Rivkah Bar, and Adler, Chaim (New York: Praeger, 1970), pp. 419–428;Google ScholarAvineri, Shlomo, ‘Israel: Two Nations?’ in Israel: Social Structure and Change, ed. Curtis, Michael and Chertoff, Mordecai (New Brunswick: E. P. Dutton, 1973), pp. 281–305.Google Scholar
23 Divine, Donna Robinson, ‘The Modernization of Israeli Administration,’ The International Journal of Middle East Studies, 5, 3 (06, 1974), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Medding, Peter Y., Mapai in Israel: Political Organization and Government in a New Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), chap. 8.Google Scholar
25 The party was established by people adhering to several different ideologies and no single ideology ever emerged. Consensus was established on largely pragmatic grounds. See especially Eisenstadt, S. N., Israeli Society (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), chap. 4.Google Scholar
26 Medding, Mapai in Israel, p. 206.Google Scholar
27 Ibid., p. 156.
28 Ibid., p. 148.
29 Abba Eban's career was sponsored by the Gush.Google Scholar
30 Yanai, Natan, Qera be-Tsameret (Split at the Top) (Tel Aviv: Lewin-Epstein, 1969), p. 84.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., p. 79.
32 Avi-hai, Avraham, Ben Gurion State-Builder (New York: John Wiley and Sons 1974), chap. 13.Google Scholar
33 Yanai, Qera be-Tsameret, pp. 143–151.Google Scholar
34 Ibid., p. 39.
35 Ibid., p. 40.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., p. 42.
38 Ibid., p. 41, and Bar-Zohar, Michel, Spies in the Promised Land (London: Davis-Pynter, 1972), p. 273.Google Scholar
39 Yanai, Qera be-Tsameret, p. 44.Google Scholar
40 Christman, Henry M., ed., The State Papers of Levi Eshkol (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1969), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar For a general description of Eshkol's political style see Medding, Mapai in Israel, p. 270.Google Scholar
41 Boissevain, Jeremy, ‘Patronage in Sicily’, Man, 1, 1 (03, 1966), 18–33 at p. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 See Rousseau on the ‘clauses’ of a social contract. Rousseau refers to the parts of a social contract often. For example, Social Contract, p. 14.Google Scholar
43 Horowitz, Dan and Lissak, Moshe, ‘Authority without Sovereignty: The Case of the National Jewish Community in Palestine,’ Government and Opposition, 8, 1 (Winter, 1973), 48–71 at p. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Eisenstadt, Israeli Society, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar
45 Arian, Alan, The Choosing People (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve, 1973), p. 81.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., p. 45.
47 Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties (London: Methuen, 1965), pp. 410, 417–418,Google Scholar and Sartori, Giovanni, ‘The Typology of Party Systems: Proposals for Improvement, in Mass Politics, ed. Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 322–352.Google Scholar
48 Extrapolated from Friedman, ‘On the Concept of Authority,’ p. 140,Google Scholar and from Waizer, Michael, Obligations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 47.Google Scholar
49 Fein, Politics in Israel, pp. 90–91.Google Scholar
50 Schectman, J. B., ‘Revisionism,’ in Struggle for Tomorrow, ed. Gross, Feliks and Viavianos, Basil J. (New York: Arts, 1954), pp. 86–100 at p. 88.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., pp. 88–89.
52 Ibid., p. 90.
53 Ibid., p. 94.
54 Ibid.
55 Etzioni, Arnitai, ‘Israel's Colonial Temptations,’ West Africa Affairs, 1 (1969), 20–23 at p. 21.Google Scholar
56 Weiss, Shevah, Ha-Politikayim be-Israel (Politicians in Israel) (Tel Aviv: Achiasaf Publishing, 1973),Google Scholar and Weiss, Shevah, Tipologiya Shel Nivharim ha-Lokaliyyim VeShe'elat ha- Yitzivot be-Shilton ha-Makomi be-Israel (Typology of Local Elections and the Question of Stability in Local Government in Israel) (Jerusalem: Akadamon, 1970).Google Scholar
57 Dahl, Robert A., ‘Some Explanations,’ in Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, ed. Dahl, Robert A. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 359 ff.Google Scholar
58 Elazar, Daniel J., Israel: From Ideological to Territorial Democracy (New York: General Learning Press, 1971), p. 5.Google Scholar
59 Zohar, Michel Bar, Ha-Hodesh ha-Arokh be-Yotar (The Longest Month) (Tel Aviv: Lewin-Epstein, 1968), p. 144.Google Scholar
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., p. 156.
62 Fein, Politics in Israel, p. 94.Google Scholar
63 Michel Bar Zohar, Ha-Hodesh, p. 156.Google Scholar
64 Ibid., p. 141.
65 Ibid., p. 169.
66 Ibid.
67 Yanai, Natan, op. cit., p. 295.Google Scholar
68 Bar-Zohar, Ha-Hodesh, p. 92.Google Scholar
69 Ibid., p. 175.
70 Ibid.
71 In national elections the whole of Israel is constituted as a single constituency. Consequently, the members of the parties do not derive any power as constituency representatives.Google Scholar
72 Parties and individuals are allowed to abstain in crucial parliamentary votes if they are matters of conscience. I am treating Israel as a segmented society in the way used by Dahl, Robert A., ‘Introduction,’ Regimes and Oppositions, ed. Dahl, Robert A. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar and Rogowski, Ronald, Rational Legitimacy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
73 Walzer, Obligations, p. 20.Google Scholar