“Politics Has Become Less Ideological and More Personal” – Voters’ Aren't Interested in Party Platforms

Of the 17 major parties running in the 2026 elections, 11 have published detailed platforms. A review of party platforms over the past decade on the Israel Democracy Institute’s website shows a significant improvement, as between 2015 and 2022, only four to five parties published detailed platforms. The ruling party, Likud, published a platform ahead of the current election for the first time in 17 years.

Despite the unusual trend in the current Israeli elections, party platforms have clearly declined in status over recent decades, and not only in Israel. “This is a global process. In every country, in different ways and to varying degrees, platforms are less important than they used to be,” says Dr. Assaf Shapira, head of the Political Reform Program at the Israel Democracy Institute. “We see this in how much attention parties devote to them, in the media’s focus, and among voters themselves.”

What are the main reasons for this?

“Politics has become less ideological and more personal. We feel this especially in Israel, but it is happening all over the world. There is more focus on individuals, particularly party leaders, and less on parties and their ideologies. It’s not that ideological debates have disappeared entirely, but they are significantly less important and less clearly defined than they used to be. This is especially true in the economic sphere.”

Why economics in particular?

“In the past, the ideological divide was between socialist left-wing parties and capitalist right-wing parties. When you look at past platforms, or even at parties and countries where platforms still play some role today, you see this reflected in economic policy: welfare, education, housing and healthcare.

“Once these issues became less central, policy and platforms declined in importance accordingly. At the extremes, this distinction still works. In Israel, I can understand the difference between Moshe Feiglin (Zehut party) and Hadash party on this issue. But can anyone tell me what the difference is between Likud and Yair Lapid (B’Yachad party) ?”

What about security and diplomatic policy?

“It’s hard to say that the differences between the opposition and the coalition are sharp and clear there either. Neither side has a clear plan. Again, at the extremes — Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, the Joint List — the positions are very clear. But when I look at the broad spectrum between Bennett, Eisenkot, Lieberman and Netanyahu, I find it difficult to see clear differences. So if there are no clear policy positions, what are they going to write in their platforms?”

Leaders, Party Members and the Political Agenda

Personality-driven politics is, of course, nothing new. The 20th century saw charismatic leaders who rallied the masses behind them, as well as others who lost elections because they failed to connect with the public. But unlike today, those leaders were supported by powerful party organizations with large memberships, whose members sought to influence the political agenda. For example, in the mid-1970s, the Labor Party had around a quarter of a million members — six times the peak membership of its successor, the Democrats (adjusting the number of Israelis then to today’s population).

American political historian Anton Jäger argues that there is a close connection between the weakening of left-wing party institutions, above all trade unions, and the decline of their ideological platforms, alongside the growing personalization of politics. In 1973, the Labor Party published a platform of around 50 pages, detailing its economic and diplomatic vision across hundreds of provisions. The platforms of 2026 are not even called platforms: Yashar’s Ten Steps, Likud’s six-page document, Together’s “Plan for Repair,” and the Democrats’ “Work Agenda.” All are concise policy documents with modest ambitions.

Have Party Platforms Changed Form?

Beyond the erosion of participatory institutions within parties and the rise of personality-driven politics, some see a connection between the decline of party platforms and changes in mass media, particularly social media.

When I open TikTok, Bennett and Ben-Gvir explain to me in 30 seconds what should be done with the territories. Maybe that’s enough?

“That’s a real question. Perhaps platforms have simply changed form. But we need to make a distinction: there are arguments, and there are policy explanations. You can’t replace dozens of pages of explanations that develop each issue and set out clear positions. It’s obvious that the younger generation has virtually no connection to written documents, but saying that a platform has changed form into short videos featuring arguments by party leaders isn’t entirely wrong.”

Are there other places in the world where things look differently?

“In Britain, Austria and the Netherlands, there are discussions and media coverage of party platforms. In the Netherlands, there are also official state-affiliated research institutes that compare party platforms to help the public understand them. Incidentally, the emphasis there is on comparing the economic policies of different parties. Perhaps because there is greater demand for this, and also because it is easier to analyze economic implications, costs, financing and so on. The question is how much public demand there is for this, even in established democracies, because there, too, interest in party platforms has declined compared with the past.”

“The Tribal Dimension Is Stronger Than Ever”

The enormous presence of personality-driven politics, which Shapira identifies across the Western world, is compounded by sector-based voting, with characteristics unique to Israel. “There’s no need to romanticize the past — Israeli politics has always been tribal,” Shapira says. “But in recent years, the tribal dimension has become stronger than ever.”

To illustrate this, Shapira points to the 1990s, when Israel still saw major shifts between political blocs in response to diplomatic developments: between Shamir and Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu, and Netanyahu and Barak. “These were significant shifts in voter behavior that indicate a certain degree of freedom from tribal loyalties. Today, we see that it is much harder to move voters. And if voters don’t shift and what matters is the individual, then it is natural that party platforms become less central.”

“If we start looking at party platforms and demanding them, then we will get them. Unfortunately, today, there isn’t even an expectation that such a demand should be made.”