Professor Argues Sectoral Compensation Drives Israeli Voting Patterns
Professor Danny Gutwein, a prominent figure on the Israeli left, argues that the persistent electoral success of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the right is not due to blind loyalty but a calculated strategy of "sectoral compensation." In an interview, Gutwein likens himself to Cato the Elder, who famously ended every speech by calling for the destruction of Carthage, suggesting his own relentless focus on combating neoliberalism and advocating for a social democratic welfare state is similarly persistent.
Gutwein contends that Netanyahu systematically fosters a "sectocracy" where only sectors loyal to him receive state benefits and compensation, while others are neglected. This strategy, he claims, began solidifying around the 2011 social protests, gained momentum in 2015, and was significantly accelerated by the judicial overhaul plans announced in January 2023. He dismisses the "Netanyahu trials" as a minor factor, arguing the core issue is the systematic creation of a system that rewards loyalist groups like the Haredi and settler communities.
He explains that this system of "sectoral compensation" is the Likud party's political innovation, designed to overcome the inherent contradiction of a right-wing party whose base often comes from lower socioeconomic strata. This compensation, he asserts, includes benefits for settlements, Haredi communities, and religious Zionist "core groups," which are funded by a significant deficit in civilian budgets compared to OECD countries. Gutwein believes this system explains the voting patterns where middle socioeconomic clusters (4-7) predominantly vote right, while higher clusters (8-10) vote center-left, and the poorest clusters (1-3) vote Haredi or Arab.
Gutwein also introduces the concept of a "collapsing class", reservists, families who lost businesses, and displaced individuals, who feel abandoned by the state because they don't fit neatly into existing sectors. He argues that the center-left fails to connect with this group by offering only abstract "statehood" and rule of law without social content, whereas Netanyahu offers a "sectoral neoliberalism" with compensation mechanisms that are more appealing. He suggests that a genuine social democratic welfare state, focusing on equal opportunity and social security, is the only way to counter this.
Furthermore, Gutwein proposes learning from Itamar Ben-Gvir's political effectiveness, arguing that Ben-Gvir successfully "sectoralizes the periphery" by addressing the needs of groups like low-wage police officers and residents of the periphery, making them feel seen and valued. He believes that the perceived "blindness" of the left to these socioeconomic realities and the effectiveness of sectoral compensation prevents them from understanding why Netanyahu maintains strong support, even after events like October 7th.
