Two senior female researchers conducted an innovative study using artificial intelligence that examined the rate of participation in a constitutional committee.
According to the findings: the chairman of the committee, Simcha Rothman, speaks between 25%-45% of the time, also, equality was recorded between the speaking rate of the jurists who support the reform and those who oppose it, it was published in Israel today.
Researchers Dr. Ronit Levin Shenor, senior lecturer in law and expert in empirical research and political conflicts, and Dr. Renana Kidar, senior lecturer in law and digital humanities, expert in computational textual analysis of the law, activated the algorithm that studied seven meetings of the committee between the dates 11.1-23.11 which make up 17 hours.
In the debates that took place on January 22-23, which were boycotted by MKs from the opposition, Chairman Rothman spoke about 40% of the time, while in the rest of the debates he spoke about 30% of the time. When he was replaced by another chairman, the situation changed: in three meetings, Rothman was replaced by MK Moshe Saada, who spoke about 17% of the time on average, and once by MK Yitzhak Pindros, who spoke only 5% of the time. The researchers point out that “the chairman of the committee takes over on the right to speak”.
They also comment that due to the fact that the bill being discussed in the committee is Chairman Rotman himself, “it could have been expected that by virtue of his central role in setting the agenda and drafting the proposals, and also considering the fact that the discussions in the committee were not preceded by formal and informal formation and preparation procedures, the chairman was withdraws from a high degree of control over the debates and turns the stage to hearing diverse and even professional voices, as he stated he would do at the beginning of the debates.”
When examining each meeting separately, it appears that the members of the Knesset from the opposition each receive little speaking time, in the meeting held on January 16, the members of the opposition each spoke 1.6% of the time – “an extremely negligible rate” according to the researchers.
When examining the total number of discussions, it appears that the members of the opposition speak 26% of the time of the committee while the members of the coalition speak 32%, most of the time Chairman Rothman speaks himself. The researchers note that the figure “reflects the political story: the coalition speaks with one voice – literally – the voice of Rothman , while the opposition is divided between many speakers, none of whom get to present an orderly position in front of the committee and certainly as a group their voice is not cohesive.”
As far as voicing the expert jurists’ position is concerned, according to the data, Rothman maintains a balance. In all the discussions, he allowed the jurists opposed to the reform to speak 18% of the time, while the supporting experts 8%. This does not include the public servants who received 5% of the total speaking time, and in fact they also oppose the reform.
The researchers point out that “on average per speaker per meeting, supporting experts and opposing experts received a similar rate of about 5%, ignoring the exceptional case of Prof. Yitzhak Zamir” – an expert opposed to the reform who spoke 29% of the meeting in which he participated. The researchers nevertheless note that “the experts who are not clear supporters of the reform, do get an opportunity to be heard, but in a very partial and negligible way compared to the part of the chairman”.
The Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, MK Simcha Rothman, responded to a study on speaking times in the debates on the legal plan in the Constitutional Committee: “This morning it was proven that the claim that the opposition was not given sufficient speaking time in the Knesset debates on the legal plan collapses.”
“Even a biased study that examined 7 days of debates chosen in a trending manner, some of which were dedicated to opening speeches or the presentation of the bill, shows that in the Constitutional Committee I chair, opponents of the legal plan are given more of a platform than its supporters.
“The data show that on the days of the routine debates, significantly more time is given to the speakers who oppose the reform. It also appears from the graph that as the debates continue, the numbers summarizing MK Rothman’s speaking time keep going down.
“As mentioned, the study is flawed because it does not distinguish between administrative speaking time (calls for order and persistent attempts to silence the Knesset members who erupt at the words of the experts invited to the committee, who are mostly from the side opposing the reform) and substantive speaking time: the time when I present the bill wearing hats as the proposer And the time I present the research and data behind the bill in hats as an expert.
For example, Knesset member Moshe Saada, who chaired the committee but did not function as the proposer of the law or as an expert who conducted independent tests of the information presented, spoke for a significant amount of time, which was mainly dedicated to the committee’s management and the distribution of speaking time.
“In addition, the study did not examine whether the scope of the chairman of the committee’s speech in the debates is unusual compared to previous chairmen of the Constitution Committee.
“And still, despite all these biases of the research, the clear truth cannot be obscured: in the Constitutional Committee chaired by me, more discussion time is given to the opponents of the reform than to its supporters! Also this morning, I invite the members of the opposition and anyone who wishes to come and voice their position.”