ABSTRACT
Although the analysis of aggregate data of group representation in party institutions is an important means of identifying major patterns and trends, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of such data. Given the nature of the nominations process, the selection of a particular individual for membership in an institution is frequently influenced to a large degree by the nature of the nominee’s relationship with a member of the Nominations Committee and/or a patron among the national party elite. However, in the formal sense his selection is ostensibly as a representative of a geographical region, ethnic group, previous party faction, age or sex category, or a combination of several of these and/or other criteria. Whenever possible, the Nominations Committee will tag a nominee as a representative of as many categories as possible. For example, a young woman of Middle Eastern background who comes from a development town, has an academic education, and is a new immigrant to Israel could be claimed to represent five sets of interests—in addition to those of her patron, which is likely crucial in the appointment of this hypothetical candidate. Some of these problems will be raised in the forthcoming discussion of the nature of representation in the party. I caution the reader, therefore, that the extrapolation of representation in party institutions can only be an approximation of the much more complex reality.
