Party Coalition - David Godoy

In the end of 2014, Brazil has passed through the closest presidential election since the establishment of its democracy. The country was literally divided into two major factions, the Worker’s Party (PT) and the Social Democratic Party (PSDB). The final results were 51% for Dilma (form the PT) and 48% for Aecio Neves. Prior to the election day, the election research did not showed a candidate that was more likely to win, making very hard to know what was going to be the final result. Even with the victory of the PT and the reelection of Dilma Rousseff, the PT party is far from having control of the country’s government. During this same election, senators and representatives from the Lower and Upper National House were also running for elections. The results proved to be very different from the presidential elections where 32 different party received seats and not one party is even close to achieving majority. Therefore, in order to effectively pass legislation, the PT needs to gain support and create party coalitions inside the upper and lower house.

Already at the start of her second mandate, president Dilma started facing a hostile Congress. With the election of a new president of the Chamber: Deputy Eduardo Cunha. Cunha is not a great ally of the President and the executive power making President Dilma start implementing new policies to start a dialog with the Congress. Without a coalition, the Chamber will be unable to implement new policies especially during this crucial time in Brazil where the population is demanding stricter anti-corruption policies.

Recently, we read the article by Jonathan Slapin that discussed about party coalitions (Institutions and coalition formation: The German election of 2005). In his article, Slapin focus on the German elections of 2005, where it was one of the most changing elections since the restoration of Germany. In this election, a new political party merged with significant votes, and no one had an absolute majority. Therefore, in order to form a government, the political parties had to organize and form coalitions. This was a difficult task sine there was several different possible coalitions that they could form. Some included the Jamaica coalition, the traffic light coalition, the coalition of the left, and the grand coalition. Slapin analyzes these coalitions and discusses its strengths and weakness. Some coalitions parties were not able to work with each other, some other the party’s ideology was too different. The coalition finally created were among the two biggest parties, the CDU and the SPD. With their coalition, they were able to acquire a majority both in the lower and upper house. Also this allowed the election of a new chancellor Angela Merkel.

Just like the situation in Germany, Brazil has to pass by similar negotiations and coalitions. The government system is completely different, Brazil being presidential and Germany parliamentary. However, both countries have to face with more than two political parties. Germany, might not has as much parties as Brazil, but having a PR electoral system, it allowed the formulation of parties and these parties have to work together in many ways in order to form a government. This is necessary because if they do not form a government, it will be impossible for the country to create and implement policies. In parliamentary systems, when this happens, the government is viewed as infected, a vote of no confidence is usually presented and elections are scheduled in order to change the situation. In Brazil, vote of no confidence does not exist, and the Congress has to deal with several parties that have a share of seats. Therefore, in order to be able to function effectively, the parties have to form informal coalitions and vote together in order to pass bills. The president tries to win the support of the major coalition in order to be able to introduce bills (something that the Brazilian president can do). However this is not easy to accomplish and the Brazilian Congress is viewed many times as ineffective. The great number of political parties represented in the Brazilian Congress also means that the range of ideology in the political spectrum (left-right) is very large. You can find parties from any point in the political spectrum which makes even harder for parties to cooperate, form coalitions and work together.

The Untapped Potential of Quotas

            At the beginning of March 2015, Germany passed a revolutionary law that is expected to have a huge difference in both the political and business world for Germans. Currently, women hold only 20 percent of the seats on corporate boards even though some of the largest multinational companies are based within the country. Some of these include Mercedes-Benz, Deutsche Bank, Bayer and Merck, BASF and many more. The new law will require German companies to give 30 percent of supervisory seats to women beginning next year. Germany is not the first country to implement a quota law like this, but rather are following suit from counties such as Norway. The overall goal of this legislation is to create a larger role for women on corporate and executive boards of company’s across the globe. Germany, as well as other European countries have seen this type of legislation make a splash in recent years and politicians expect to see more of this pressure continue and spread throughout the world in coming years. A major perpetuator of the bill in Germany was chancellor Angela Merkell who has been accredited for her overwhelming support toward gender issues within Germany and across Europe. This legislation has been known as, “the greatest contribution to gender equality since women got the vote in Germany in 1918.” Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook executive and author claims that advocates are focusing less on company quotas but instead, aiming to further promote women and adopt family-friendly policies companywide. Research supports that although legislative quotas have increased the motivation of businesses to aim for gender equality within the workplace, major gender issues regarding pay gap, family-friendly policies, and maternity leave have made little to no progress.

            Quotas have been used in attempts to create more equality for women and men in all areas of life, work and politics. An article by Krook and Othello looks specifically at gender quotas in political systems as an attempt to create more involvement and participation of women in the political system. Currently, women only make up 19% of parliamentarians in the more than 100 countries that have adopted quota regulations worldwide. In their research, they find that when gender quotas were implemented in various government systems, it did no necessary yield the effects they had hoped for. Additionally, there was cause for even more concern because overall, they found that there was an incentive for male candidates to run against a female candidate, especially when incumbency was at risk because the male candidate held an advantage. Essentially, female quotas, although good in principle, do not make as stark of a difference as they were hoping.

                            

            In an additional article, also written by Krook, she takes a specific look at gender and minority quotas and uses 4 specific case studies to illustrate her point. Different countries have implemented various types of quotas and based on the type of quota system, with varying amounts of improvement. It appears that party quotas and legislative quotas are the most effective and usually enacted by 25-30 percent of countries that implement quotas systems. The biggest issue with minority quotas, as compared to gender quotas, is that currently, there are various definitions that would fall under the term minority. The term minority can apply to a variety of different classifications and therefore reserving seats or creating a quota for minorities makes it a bit more difficult to control. Out of her 4 case studies, which include Belgium, India and Iraq, the most interesting example was that of Rwanda. Rwanda is known for having the most women in parliament compared to any other country in the world. Krook believes the reason for this is because of the increase in female participation, not only in politics, but also in everyday life, which was required during and after the horrific genocide in 1993. Although the genocide was horrible for the Rwandan people, this event created a springboard by which women were able to get more involved in business, family life and eventually politics. Krook believes that these events allowed for a greater support of the quota system and more support eventually lead to the increase in female participation.

                          

            You may be asking yourself, so how do corporate board quotas translate into politics? The New York Times article and the articles written by Krook have more similarities than you might think. Above is a visual depiction of what social scientists refer to as the pipeline. This is a step-by-step process that explains how an average citizen eventually becomes a political figure. Many social scientists believe that the majority of women are “lost” in this pipeline during the recruiting phase, which occurs when an eligible becomes an aspirant. Krook would argue that an attempt to minimize this loss of female candidates is solved by creating quotas within political systems because it encourages and even forces party leaders and politicians to recruit a certain number of female candidate. However, another argument could be made in favor of the effect of quotas on women in a business or corporate world and how this could affect women politically. Social scientists suggest that a main reason why women “miss out” on the recruiting process is because women typically do not interact in the same social circles that many male eligibles interact in. Therefore, because of the interaction of male eligibles with other powerful elites or even party leaders, the likelihood of them becoming aspirants and even candidates is much higher than women. Perhaps, if more women were given access to these elite, corporate jobs, they would also, by default, gain access to these social circles, eventually minimizing the amount of women who are lost through the recruiting process. Additionally, if women were coming from the same eligibles “pool” as men, then the results of Krook’s original article would no longer be valid. Krook found that men, even when running against women in a quota system, typically still won more often, however perhaps, if the mechanism by which these women were placed into these races were different and their qualifications were more similar to their male counter parts, this finding would no longer exist. The motive behind implementing quotas is always positive, however by redirecting the intention of the quotas, we could tap into endless possibilities for future female candidates.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/world/europe/german-law-requires-more-women-on-corporate-boards.html?_r=0

What is the Tea Party, and How Have They Influenced the GOP?

What is the Tea Party? Who is the Tea Party? What do they stand for? These are questions still held by many today. The Tea Party evolved as a faction within the GOP after a devastating loss of the presidency to the Democrats in 2008. The GOP was falling apart and losing support. In an effort to revitalize conservatism and support within the Republican Party, and largely also in a demonstration of disapproval of the Obama Administration, a group of hardliner conservatives within the party formed a coalition. These members of the far-right gathered in support of Constitutionalism and strict adherence to traditional conservative principles, expressing much disdain for moderate conservatives and the direction they were taking the GOP. Though the members of the Tea Party remain few, and the number actually involved and active in the Tea Party even fewer, they gained considerable amount of attention from the media and have worked within the Republican Party to realign conservative principles and drive the party platform farther right rather than bringing the party to the center.

                With that being said, the name Tea Party can kind of be misleading: the Tea Party is not really a “party”, and not necessarily a faction. However, they are not really an interest group (a group that has no political power, just strictly policy-oriented) either. Many Tea Partiers who happen to be running for office do not declare that they are a member of the “Tea Party”. Typically they run on a Republican or Independent ticket. The “Tea Party” as a name is more symbolic than anything, and it is more a measure on the ideological scale than as a party itself. It is a label for extreme conservatism. One of the reasons they coined the name “Tea Party” is because of its reference to the Boston Tea Party during the American Revolution. It was in protest of taxation, which a significant proponent of Tea Party ideology: they are traditionally against taxes and prefer tax cuts. There is some other significance as well, but it is mainly a historical reference. To quote from the Tea Party organization website:

“Reminiscent of Tiananmen Square where a few stood to defy tyranny and demand liberty and democracy, a few patriots stood in protest representing the American people. We are more than lowly protestors; we are the type of Americans the Founding Fathers envisioned over 200 years ago as true Patriots of courage and valor.”

                Now that we know a little bit about what the Tea Party is, who is the Tea Party? Equally important, how successful have they been pursuing their goal: transforming Republican conservatism? According to Vanessa Williamson, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin (authors of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism), The Tea Party is comprised mostly of business elites and extreme social conservatives within the Republican Party. Most are older than 45, rich, and Caucasian. In fact, while the faction does not technically have leadership, it is presumed that it is mostly funded by a few elites, particularly the Koch Brothers. While the primary goal of the Tea Party arguably isn’t necessarily pursuing political seats, many Republicans associated with the Tea Party have been running for offices. It is also interesting to note that some of the candidates or potential candidates bidding for the 2016 Republican nomination for president are Tea Partiers, including: potential candidate Ben Carson, candidate Ted Cruz, candidate Rand Paul (who is also Libertarian, arguably more so), and Lt. Colonel Allen West. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have already announced their bids for the 2016 Presidency.

                Williamson, Skocpol and Coggin’s main argument is that the Tea Party, a result of the demoralizing loss to Obama and the Democrats in 2008, have made a significant impact on the Republican Party (GOP) despite small and declining support. They argue that, even if the Tea Party ceases to exist, they have effectively undercut the Obama Administration, “revitalized conservatism”, and polarized the GOP away from the middle-one of their primary goals. Even though tea partiers pursue office, the main goal of the organization is not to win elections, which distinguishes it from a political party. They are more like an interest group in that they are trying to change GOP politics, Williamson and co-authors would say. The strategic timing of the formation of the Tea Party (frustrated middle class Republicans with the election of Obama), and media coverage is what Williamson and co-authors assert have made them successful.

                And important function of the Tea Party and the reason it has been so widely publicized is because of media attention, particularly Fox News as Williamson would suggest. The media outlets seized the opportunity the protests gave in 2008 and Fox has continually produced the most coverage of the Tea Party ever since. This does not really come as much surprise since Fox News is a conservative media outlet, with the Tea Party being an extremely conservative organization. Williamson would add that the success of the Tea Party and its attempt at polarizing Congress and trying to shift the GOP to be more conservative than moderate is largely due to press coverage. Regarding the recent presidential bid announcements of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, this has proved to be true. While other media outlets have covered the events, Fox News has done a more extensive and positive spin on the Tea Partiers with positive things to say about both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. With two Tea Partiers declared as candidates for the presidential bid, and one of them (Rand Paul) projected to be #2 in the lead so far, it is easy to see how even if they don’t win office, they receive extensive coverage that expose their ideas. 

Sources: 

http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/04/politico-cruz-path-to-victory-unites-tea-party-christian-right/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/07/cruz-paul-engage-in-tea-party-rivalry-to-win-2016-gop-presidential/

Coalitions Not Losing Importance in India

Sometimes it is hard to understand the true power of coalitions when living in a place like the United States where two main political parties drive our political system. Smaller parties, such as the Tea Party, do not have much say and can only win elections when running under the umbrella of a larger party. However, in countries such as India, coalitions are imperative to winning any election. The votes are normally spread over several different parties, which make it harder to win the majority. This is where coalitions come into play.

In a study done by Sona Nadenichek Golder, she discusses two different type of coalitions: pre-electoral coalitions, and coalitions formed once elected to government. However, she focuses most of her study on pre-electoral coalitions, or in other words, coalitions created before an election. Golder defines a pre-electoral coalition as “multiple parties [choosing] to co-ordinate their electoral strategies rather than run for office alone”. When in a political system with many different parties, it is crucial for the smaller parties to band together in order to gets seats within government and be able to have any control over the laws and legislation that gets passed. There are several circumstances in which coalitions are more likely to form. The three situations I would like to focus on in which coalitions are more likely to form are: 1. When parties are ideologically compatible 2. When the expected coalition size is large and 3. When potential coalition partners are similar in size.

Main Political Parties in India

No single party has won the majority since the 1990s in India due to the start of political coalitions in 1989. However, India can be very difficult to create coalitions and be able to tell who will have enough votes to win considering there are 29 states and seven Union Territories which can make things complicated. This makes it incredibly difficult to predict before hand what will occur during elections. In India, the most important coalitions are those with parties in particular states. In India there is one obvious coalition between the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which stems from ideological similarities. However, the smaller political coalitions in India can often go against the results of Golder’s study. Some of these smaller coalitions can often be pushed by “political opportunism” rather than similarities in ideologies. This is perhaps a reason why none of the Indian coalitions can stay together for more than a term, if that. Many coalitions that ended up winning between 1989 and 2004 didn’t make it to the end of a full term in office. One coalition only made it thirteen days into their reign of power.

Results of the 2014 Election

It is important for the biggest party in India to realize the past research done on pre-electoral coalitions in order to create a coalition that will withstand all the changes happening in India right now. As shown in the last couple of elections, the BJP has not necessarily made a coalition that can withstand all the other parties. In the 2014 elections they did not get as many seats as they hoped and their coalition saw possible decline. The only reason they won the 2014 election was due to circumstances that will not be there in future years. The future of this coalition is very unsure. When moving forward it is important for the BJP to look towards the other parties that are similar in size and ideology. If they focus on having similar ideologies, the coalition will hopefully continue to increase and solidify in the elections to come.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/the-politics-of-coalitions-in-india/

http://nottspolitics.org/2014/03/13/alliances-are-the-key-to-understanding-indias-general-election/

https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/iit/farooquisridharan

Departments of France

Around the world many countries have been taking measures in recent years to attempt to alleviate inequalities in representation in democracies. Various measures, such as mandatory representation for minorities or requiring the same number of men and women on ballots, have been undertaken in the effort to provide fair representation for minorities and historically disadvantaged groups. However, these efforts do not always have the intended results. A recent election in France for French Departmental Council positions demonstrates the challenges of electoral reform and representation. In these elections, a new French law mandates that pairs consisting of a man and a women must be elected to each departmental council. This must result in 2054 men and 2054 women being seated in the councils. Although this was carried out successfully, the leadership of the departments still had the most powerful position, that of the President of the Department, taken mostly by men. France 24 news declares, “In 101 departments, the ratio of men to women (Presidents) is 91-10. Far, very far from the absolute parity imposed in the departmental councils by the election of a binomial masculine-feminine pair.” Why have these reforms been instituted? And why do they, as in this case, often seem to fall short of the ideals that they embody? Political science allows us to postulate likely answers to these questions.

            Dr. Murray, Dr. Krook, and Dr. Opello (hereafter Krook et al.) wrote an article about gender quotas specific to France in 2012. Although the article predates the recent outcome of the French Departmental elections, the analysis provided gives us a framework in which we can better understand recent events. In their article Krook et al. examine possible reasons why male dominated parties would adopt quotas that require females to be elected because the quotas inherently go against the self-interest of males who might be replaced by females. They argue that party pragmatism shows that quota adoption is consistent with incentives that legislators and party leaders face and that it fits into an explanation of ideological, electoral and strategic incentives. Krook et al. explain that parties on the left were motivated to support electoral reforms because of ideological and electoral factors. It would be inconsistent with their ideology to oppose quotas, and it would also go against the views of the majority of their voters. Parties on the right on the other hand were coerced into supporting quotas by public opinion and pressure from their leaders. However, both parties on the right and the left could safely pursue policies that called for quotas while remaining confident that most of their legislators could remain male because of strategic placing of candidates. Although the parties are required to have a certain percentage of female candidates, Krook et al. found that female candidates are consistently placed into races where they are expected to lose, not because of their gender but because the seat is a safe seat for the opposing party. In this way, parties can easily fulfill the law and appease voters while maintaining the status quo.

            Krook et al.’s analysis helps to interpret the recent events in the French Departmental elections because these elections follow a similar trend. French Departmental Councils are not particularly powerful positions. They administer social and welfare allowances, junior high school buildings and staff, local roads, and some municipal infrastructure. This is important to note because although French leadership voted to have perfect parity in the councils, they did so for a lower level office and without the consent of those already serving in that office. As explained by Krook et al. it was in their interest to do so because of the political gains that come from following the public will of equality and staying true to one’s ideological commitments. However, strategically the politicians who imposed the quota did not fear any loss of power. Furthermore, the most important position in the departments, that of President, is still mostly filled by men. In the same way that women who run in elections for the national legislature are marginalized because of their placement in tough districts, here it appears that women are once again being marginalized in some way that prevents them from competing as effectively for these Presidential positions. Although Krook et al.’s research cannot provide us with the method that helped men to largely defeat women in these races, their work provides compelling evidence that although parties and legislators controlled by men are happy to support equality in principle, they have and continue to develop ways to ensure their power is secure in practice.

Sources and Further Reading:

http://www.france24.com/fr/20150403-presidence-conseils-departementaux-hommes-femmes-parite-pas-gagne-elections-departementales/

http://www.france24.com/fr/20150312-elections-departementales-parite-absolue-binomes-femmes-ump-ps/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_departmental_elections,_2015

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41635253

Pre Electoral Coalitions Within The United States

The rise and fall of different parties controlling governments is part of politics and necessary for a healthy democracy. In most parliamentary systems with several parties there is a need to form coalitions after elections in order to form a majority and control the government. A coalition is when multiple parties come together to form a voting block so that it has the amount of votes necessary pass legislation. Research done by the political scientist Golder suggests that these parliamentary systems sometimes also have pre electoral coalitions. This is the case when parties form coalitions before elections instead of after. Pre electoral coalitions however are not only important in parliamentary systems that have several different parties, but also in different types of governments that have two parties like the United States. Because of the two party system in the US sometimes coalitions form within these parties to influence policy or select candidates.

In the study done by Golder she seeks to understand why, and how, pre electoral coalitions form in countries that have multiple parties. What she does not address however is how pre electoral coalitions also form in places like the United States. In the United States there are only two parties that can win elections and they have many different groups and factions within a particular party. Ultimately these different groups come together and vote under one party title and this supplies them with enough votes to win elections. During primary elections however it becomes clear that within parties there are different groups from the same party that need work together to form coalitions. These pre electoral coalitions influence which candidates are nominated in a party and also what policies are the most important to address.

Currently the Republican Party is in the spotlight as the nation decides which of the many current Republican politicians will be that party’s next presidential candidate. It is then necessary for politicians like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush to form their own pre electoral coalitions within the Republican Party.  For example, there are different types of Republicans such as libertarians, Christian conservatives, and Tea Partiers. Because there are different types of Republicans within the party those competing for the party’s presidential nomination also need to successfully form a coalition within their party between the different groups. By doing so they can win the support required in order to become the party’s nominee.

Ted Cruz recently declared that he is officially running for president. By observing his topics during speeches and the locations he chooses to visit one can see the support he is trying to garner within his party. In his speeches he refers to many libertarian ideas like shutting down the IRS or closing the American border. Also, when he declared that he was running for President he did it at a Christian Conservative college. These details show that Ted Cruz is trying to form a coalition between libertarian republicans and Christian conservatives. He hopes that if he can win the support of these two major groups within the Republican Party he will have enough support to become his party’s next presidential candidate.

            Whether in a two party system like the United States or in a multi party parliamentary system like in Germany both systems of government have pre electoral coalitions. It is useful for parties in parliamentary systems to form pre electoral coalitions so that they can secure a majority of votes before elections. In the US though, it is necessary to form pre electoral coalitions for different reasons, one instance being when a politician seeks his party’s nomination. The study by Golder demonstrates the importance of parties working together before elections to pre determine an outcome. Politicians in the United States form pre electoral coalitions within their own party in order to secure their party nomination. Coalitions within parties are forming now as the next presidential election approaches and the candidates with the strongest pre electoral coalitions will also likely be their party’s next presidential candidate.  

Sources

Golder 2006 Golder 2006.pdf  (class Reading)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-most-likely-to-end-up-as-republicans-nominee-in-2016-presidential-race/2014/12/07/b37cafca-7e3c-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pew-study-what-divides-the-gop-coalition/2014/06/26/6ef1a64c-fd4c-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html

Netanyahu for the Win

                Like most Parliamentary systems, the Israeli Prime Minister has the right to call for an election at any point during his time as leader of the country. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to dissolve the past legislature and call for a new election only two years into the four-year term. While this seemed like a waste of funds and time, there were many reasons for wanting a new election. There were many reports of power struggles within the majority coalition of the Israeli Parliament, and shortly after the election was declared the election was viewed as very competitive. Normally a Prime Minister would only call for an early election win victory is sure, but pre-election coalitions changed how the parties acted and forced both candidates to reach out to other groups in order to form a winning coalition.

                The elections that took place last month saw the Netanyahu led Likud Party in a tighter-than-expected race against Zionist Union. Though Netanyahu, and many experts, predicted an easy victory early in the election period, the Zionist Union formed an unexpected coalition and had a slight advantage going into the election. The Likud Party is on the conservative side of the Israeli politics while the challenging Zionist Camp is on the left side of the political spectrum. The Israeli Parliament is comprised of 120 seats and is called the Knesset. Thusly, any majority coalition would need to win 61 seats in order to have control. Even under the best circumstances, it was estimated that the two major parties would only receive 24 or 25 seats alone. This forces both parties to reach out to other, smaller parties in order to reach the 61 seat majority. What made this election especially interesting was that there were a few strong scenarios that could have played out, forming different coalitions that would give different parties power. While both parties had flawed campaign strategies nearing Election Day, the Likud Party and the Netanyahu coalition did not do as bad as their opponents. Netanyahu was able to convince many centrist voters to join his side as the Zionist Camp was unable to secure many leftist voters and left many citizens in doubt about their own platform and ideals. Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Labor Party and head of the Zionist Union, had very limited time to form a campaign and had very little national recognition before the election cycle had even started. These late circumstances during the campaign process helped the Likud Party win 30 seats in Parliament and secure a majority coalition that kept Netanyahu in as Prime Minister for another four-year term.

                As we read in the Golder article, coalitions need to form in order to have a working government. These coalitions can either form before or after an election, but in the case of Israel, the coalition formed prior to the election. Following the example of Israel, we see that the coalition formed by Netanyahu supports the hypotheses presented by Golder. Netanyahu formed his coalition with other groups that were ideologically similar to his own, and it was done so that he could win a majority. Also, the Likud Party was not disproportionately larger than any of the other parties that joined the coalition, allowing for fair representation even after the election. Though the party system in Israel is not significantly more polarized than other similar parliamentary systems, it is polarized enough so that opposing coalitions have viable chances at forming majority coalitions. The results that Golder found through her studies apply to the Israeli election that took place last month.

                Golder also presents a situation that could easily take place in Israel. When forming a pre-election coalition, there is a lot of doubt as to how each party’s views will be represented. Smaller parties must trust that the larger parties in the coalition hold to their promises in order to pass legislation. Netanyahu has some of these smaller parties worried about his promises. Not only has he changed his views on the Palestinian State, but his stance on fiscal measures and other social issues have not been clear since even before the election. Golder’s article could be validated by Netanyahu’s next term in office if he doesn’t hold up to his promises and appease the smaller parties in his coalition.