Two months ago, the government of Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor and Social Democratic Party leader, was ousted in a no-confidence vote initiated by the largest opposition party, following a public campaign that exposed the government’s inadequacy in dealing with inflation and rising energy prices.
Almost simultaneously, Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister for the last nine years, announced his resignation, likely leading to elections in the coming months.
This followed the opposition criticism of the government’s handling of inflation and demands for investigation into government contracts. While the immediate causes in both countries were coalition breakdown or internal party tensions, these moves wouldn’t have occurred without opposition parties acting against the government both inside and outside the parliaments.
Although the opposition almost never has a majority, its role in parliamentary democracies is central. It needs to represent minority opinion, oppose government legislation or policy, supervise and criticize it, and perhaps most importantly – present a credible alternative for the government. Academic literature argues that since the opposition faces almost no restrictions, the issues it raises compel the government to respond and sometimes alter its policies.
In contrast to this theory and to the oppositional energy in other countries, the current parliamentary opposition in Israel appears pale, leaderless, and represents a limited understanding of opposition members’ role. This is particularly evident given past experience during the Bennett-Lapid government when there was a strong opposition – led by Benjamin Netanyahu – that succeeded in toppling the government and forming an alternative one.
Incompotent oppostion
An example for the current opposition incompetence is that during the war, from October 7, 2023, to the end of October 2024, only 361 parliamentary questions were submitted to ministers. Two hundred and seventy one of these were from opposition members – an average of six questions per opposition MK, representing only a fifth of their allowed quota of 30 questions per session. The use of motions for the agenda is equally lacking. Opposition members submitted 458 motions – 32 fewer than coalition MKs, despite having a much larger quota.
The data regarding opposition leaders emphasizes this disregard – Yair Lapid, the opposition leader, was only present for 359 hours in the Knesset during this period (ranking 107th out of 120 members) and Benny Gantz only for 247 hours (ranking 114th).
The Israeli public clearly sees this malfunction. A survey by the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility in January 2025 (conducted via iPanel among 811 respondents) reveals that 76% believe that the opposition parties do not perform well. Remarkably, there were almost no differences between voters from both sides – 77% of opposition party voters and 74% of coalition voters shared this view. Voters from both camps give the current opposition a failing grade.
Moreover, while 58% of coalition party voters are satisfied with their party’s performance, only 35% of opposition voters feel the same.
The main problem with the opposition in Israel is that it fails to cooperate and present a unified critique of government. Its basic modus operandi is that its has lost the elections and lacks a majority, it acta sluggishly. It’s unclear how the oppositions expect to constitute a credible alternative with this approach.
If its members don’t cooperate – including with Arab MKs – challenge the government, propose alternative policies, and simply come to work, they will continue to lose their support base.
More seriously, while opposition members complain that the coalition is damaging Israeli democracy with its predatory legislation, in their disregard for their role as a brave and militant opposition, they are no less responsible for the erosion of the democratic structure of Israel’s regime.
The writer is a senior researcher at The Institute for Liberty and Responsibility of Reichman University.