I am writing to you after reviewing the public information on your parties' election platforms, in which I found no reference to your position on the system of government in the State of Israel. Even a party that previously proposed turning our parliamentary republic into a presidential republic no longer mentions it.

I, on the other hand, believe that without such a change, it will be impossible to guarantee the State of Israel a future of welfare and prosperity. This is because a parliamentary system is doomed to inefficiency in a country whose population is composed of three societies that maintain limited relations with one another: the non-Haredi Jewish majority and two minorities—the Haredim and the Arabs—who are largely isolated from one another and from the majority, both culturally and politically.

Given the wide range of political views and parties that traditionally characterize the majority in Israel, as opposed to the high level of political cohesion of each of the minorities, the parliamentary system allows a minority whose representatives at the same time ensure the stability of the ruling coalition to dictate its will to the majority within it. This situation is convenient both for that minority and for the other minority, which hopes to become the beneficiary of this arrangement after the next elections. Social survey data also attest to this: the average satisfaction with life—the "happiness index"—is significantly higher in both minorities compared to the majority.

In any election result that does not allow for the formation of a government without the participation of the representatives of one of the minorities—as has been the case for decades and will likely not change now either—the majority is doomed to lose. This loss is expressed in many and varied fields: from taxes, the allocation of budget funds, and military conscription, to the prohibition of operating public transportation on Saturdays.

As a result, the barriers of distrust between the three societies living in the same country are growing; disputes within the majority are intensifying; human capital is shrinking due to the departure of active citizens to other countries; and long-term ventures remain too risky. Under these conditions, the positive intentions of some parties to establish a constitution, or at least to limit the number of terms of office of the country's highest-ranking official, are almost impossible to realize.

However, these intentions can become a reality if and when the majority recognizes that a more efficient model of government for Israel is one in which the government is formed and headed by a president, elected in general and direct elections for a fixed term, and who is permitted to serve in the position for no more than two terms; while the parliament approves the budget and other laws, oversees the government's actions, and approves certain appointments.

Such a governance structure will ensure the stability of the regime, without which it is impossible to maintain long-term planning for the sustainable development of the country and to cope with tasks of a magnitude such as achieving a stable peace in the region and establishing a constitution.

Critics of the system rightly point out its inherent tendency to degenerate into authoritarian rule. However, authoritarianism is also clearly evident today in the ruling coalition, whose decisions become the laws of the state. If a president were to also begin displaying such tendencies, and the rest of the branches of government and civil society did not react to this, it would likely mean that this is what they deserve. However, I do not believe such a situation is possible in Israel.

As a voter, I would like to know what your party's position is on this issue. As an expert, should you be interested, I am ready to propose and discuss possible mechanisms for transitioning to a presidential republic, including mechanisms of direct democracy.

I wish your party a dignified election campaign and to win the voter support it deserves