Professor Cohen Calls 'Largest Party' Campaign 'Completely Baseless'

Professor Asher Cohen of Bar-Ilan University argues that the "Largest Party" campaign slogan is misleading voters, as the number of recommendations, not party size, has historically determined who receives the mandate to form a government. He suggests that the political landscape has shifted since Naftali Bennett became prime minister with only six mandates, opening the door for smaller parties to contend for the premiership if they can build a coalition. Cohen stated, "Once the wall was breached, anything can happen." He noted that before Bennett, the competition was understood to be between the two largest parties, each leading a bloc, but Bennett's precedent changed this dynamic.

Cohen posits that party leaders can now leverage factors beyond seat count, such as political experience or past ministerial roles, to justify their claim to lead the government. He references the current political maneuvering involving Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, who may not readily accept Gadi Eisenkot's leadership within their bloc, potentially leading to demands for rotation in the prime minister's office. This complexity, he believes, makes internal party struggles more intricate.

Given the precedent of smaller parties vying for the premiership, Cohen raises the possibility of legislative changes, such as establishing a minimum mandate threshold for a party leader to be eligible for prime minister. He cites the "rotten trick" of 1990 as an example of political events leading to legislative adjustments. However, he emphasizes that such a change would likely only be considered if smaller parties demanding the premiership, regardless of bloc affiliation, becomes a recurring phenomenon.

Conversely, Cohen strongly refutes the "Largest Party" campaign narrative, asserting that Israeli political history shows party size does not guarantee the mandate. He points to two instances where Benjamin Netanyahu received the mandate despite Likud not being the largest party, with the deciding factor being the number of recommendations to the president. Cohen also notes that Netanyahu has previously been tasked with forming a government with fewer than 61 recommendations.

Cohen criticizes campaigns like Gadi Eisenkot's, which explicitly claim the president will assign the mandate to the largest party, calling it "completely baseless." He suggests such campaigns aim to attract voters from within the same political camp, potentially at the expense of coalition partners. He distinguishes this from Likud's campaign, which he sees as focused on the electoral threshold rather than needing to be the largest party to receive the mandate.

Cohen concludes that the "Largest Party" argument is a recurring, factually unsupported claim used for various political needs. He views the competition over party size and the potential for rotation demands from smaller parties as different manifestations of the same political reality: election results alone do not determine the prime minister, with recommendations to the president and inter-party agreements also playing crucial roles.