Israel Democracy Institute

The Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) presents itself as an independent, nonpartisan center of research and action devoted to strengthening Israeli democracy. Its approach brings academic research into contact with politics and public administration: it studies policy problems, develops practical recommendations, convenes discussion, and seeks to work with government, civil service, and civil society on governance, civil liberties, and social solidarity.[8][1]

IDI’s work covers both institutional design and questions of public life. Its stated areas include democratic institutions, constitutional arrangements, government performance, the relationship between religion and state, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state, economic and social policy, and the interface between security and democracy.[8][9] Its publications, surveys, forums, educational initiatives, and policy interventions aim to inform decision-makers and the public, rather than to serve only as academic research.[1][2]

The institute’s most prominent recurring public-opinion project is the Israeli Democracy Index, an annual survey and analysis of democracy in Israel.[4] Other initiatives have included the Peace Index, public-opinion databases, constitutional proposals, economic conferences, and programs for dialogue across sectors of Israeli society.[5][10] IDI received the Israel Prize for lifetime achievement in 2009.[2][3]

The institute’s origins trace to the mid-1980s, when Arye (Arik) Carmon began developing the idea of an applied research body serving Israeli society and government and raising funds for it. It was founded in 1991, with assistance from businessman Bernard Marcus, to plan policy and reforms concerning government, public administration, democratic institutions, and the state’s value frameworks.[8][3] Carmon later explained that his doctoral research on Heidelberg University during the Nazi rise to power helped shape his conviction that knowledge could be used to influence political processes.[8]

Accounts differ in how they identify the founders. IDI’s Carmon profile says he founded the institute in 1991, while its Shultz profile calls George Shultz a co-founder.[3][11] Ynet separately described Bernard Marcus as a founder and principal donor.[12] Shultz’s support was associated with his concern about preserving an open society under conditions of permanent siege and his view that Israel’s future depended on internal strength and cohesion. He helped launch the institute’s national economic conference in 1993, established its International Advisory Council in 2009, and served as honorary chair until his death in 2021.[11]

Marcus was a principal donor whose continuing contributions financed IDI’s activities and, at times, covered its entire budget, according to a report published by Ynet. IDI’s account credits him with driving early work on a constitutional project and electoral reform, the Caesarea Forum, and the Knesset Research and Information Center; it also recalls his advocacy for civic education and visits to Jewish and Arab classrooms.[12] The institute has also been described as a Jerusalem-based independent research center. January 2021 GuideStar data listed it as employing 97 people, then the second-largest Jerusalem organization in the science, research, and technology category and fourth-largest nationally in that category.[13]

The Guttman Center for Surveys became part of IDI in 1998, when the Guttman Institute for Applied Social Research joined the organization. Louis Guttman had founded the original institute in 1949 as a center for public-opinion research and social-science methodology. The Center’s stated purpose is to support public-policy discussion through surveys and research databases.[10]

IDI’s work developed through a combination of research, practical policy activity, and public engagement. Its founder described three connected layers: collecting information and comparative data to support recommendations; conducting applied research, which he called the activity’s “backbone”; and maintaining dialogue with decision-makers and implementers.[8] The institute’s researchers direct projects on Israeli society and governance, while its publications department has disseminated work through book series, policy studies, Caesarea Forum publications, periodicals, and conference proceedings.[14]

IDI describes its research as a means of developing actionable reform proposals and informing policy, legislation, and public debate. Its 2025 annual report sets out a three-stage process: conduct research and formulate recommendations, convene stakeholders to discuss them, and work with partners in government, civil society, business, and media to advance and implement proposals. The institute identifies strengthening democratic institutions, social cohesion, civic participation, government performance, and public trust as central goals.[1]

The institute says it monitors bills early in the legislative process, prepares position papers analyzing provisions and proposing changes, and sends those papers to ministers, Knesset members, civil servants, and media. In its own account of this work, IDI cites the establishment by government order of a Justice Ministry oversight position in 2013 and a registration requirement for lobbyists entering Knesset committees as examples of results associated with its efforts.[15]

IDI has collected research and comparative data to support proposed legislation in democracy, society, economics, and law. Trainees prepared by the institute became professional assistants to Knesset committee chairs, and the Knesset established its Research and Information Center using institute-trained interns.[8] These activities reflect the institute’s stated effort to connect policy research with the legislature’s practical work.[8][15]

IDI’s research and dialogue have addressed security alongside democratic safeguards. Its researchers have examined the relationship between security and democracy, and its positions informed the drafting of the Shin Bet law. Carmon argued that security measures and counterterrorism tools should meet human-rights standards.[8] IDI has also been identified as prominent in work on the interface between security and democracy; think tanks more generally analyze issues, make recommendations, and can connect civil society and government.[9]

Economic and social policy is another strand of the institute’s activity. The Caesarea economic conference, later known as the Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society, became one of its continuing initiatives.[11][12] In 2019, former Bank of Israel governor Karnit Flug joined IDI as vice president of government and economy; her research remit included prosperity and economic stability, social mobility, productivity, and long-term growth.[16] IDI’s 2025 annual report says that it joined other civil-society organizations in advocating against proposed reductions in government funding for socioeconomic development in Arab society; it reports that the planned cuts were reduced from NIS 3 billion to NIS 220 million.[1] That account attributes a role in the outcome to the institute and its partners.[1]

The Israeli Democracy Index is the flagship project of IDI’s Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research. Published annually since 2003, it surveys public attitudes toward such subjects as trust in government institutions, identification with the state, Israel’s Jewish and democratic character, political participation, economic attitudes, and Israel’s standing among democracies. IDI says the Index is used to identify areas for improvement and is presented each year to Israel’s president.[4]

The 2012 report described the Index as an annual survey conducted by the Guttman Center with a representative sample of 1,025 adults in Israel. Its purpose was to estimate the quality of Israeli democracy and track opinions about democratic values, government systems, and elected officials.[10] For that edition, fieldwork took place from April 16 to May 17 through Tel Aviv University’s B.I. and Lucille Cohen Institute for Public Opinion Research. The sample included 834 Jewish and 191 Arab respondents aged 18 and over, with a reported sampling error of 3.1%; questionnaires were translated into Russian and Arabic and administered by native-speaking interviewers.[10]

The 2007 Index used a framework covering institutional, rights, and stability indicators. It compared Israel with 35 other democracies and with its own earlier performance, and examined public perceptions through a representative survey conducted in February. The survey included 1,203 Jewish and Arab respondents interviewed in Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian; the report gave a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.[14] The report said that nine of 20 updated quantitative ratings improved, five worsened, and six remained unchanged. It characterized representativeness as a relative strength and social tensions and political-system instability as weaker areas; those figures and assessments describe that edition, not a current evaluation.[14]

The same 2007 survey found that 87% of participants considered relations between Arabs and Jews not good or not at all good, 79% said relations between rich and poor were not good, and 66% said the same about relations between religious and secular Jews. At the same time, 65% believed people in Israel were prepared to compromise on important issues in order to reach an agreed basis for living together.[14] These results document respondents’ views in that survey year and should not be generalized to later periods.[14]

The 2003 Index record reported high scores for representativeness and checks and balances, alongside concerns about rights and press freedom and a decline in Jewish Israeli public support for democratic norms.[17] These are findings and interpretations reported in that edition, rather than timeless or uncontested measurements.[17] The project’s continued publication has allowed later editions to examine different topics and survey conditions. The 2019 edition was part of a project then in its seventeenth year and expanded its survey sections on attitudes toward the IDF and Diaspora Jewry.[18]

The 2020 Index was conducted for the eighteenth consecutive year and examined democratic resilience, trust in state institutions, social solidarity, and assessments of the public service. Some of its survey work took place in two rounds, in June and October, after the worsening COVID-19 crisis and its effects on the public.[19] The 2021 edition, described as the project’s nineteenth, covered democratic values, the legal system, institutional trust, and general satisfaction. Surveys were conducted in June and October using Hebrew- and Arabic-language samples, and the report was presented by IDI president Yohanan Plesner and Tamar Hermann to President Isaac Herzog.[20]

The 2021 Index included a marked age difference in political self-identification among Jewish Israelis: approximately 75.9% of those aged 18–34 identified as moderate right or right, compared with 56.6% of those aged 55 and older.[21] These figures describe respondents to that study and do not establish a general or enduring pattern beyond its measured population and period.[21]

The 2025 Index was described by IDI as the project’s twenty-third survey, based on a representative sample of Israel’s adult population. Fieldwork ran from May 4 to May 28, 2025, with some findings validated in November. Midgam conducted Hebrew interviews online and by telephone, while Afkar Research and Knowledge conducted Arabic interviews by telephone.[22]

IDI’s public-opinion work extends beyond the annual Democracy Index. The Israel Voice Index is described as an initiative of the Guttman Center, which has conducted more than 1,200 surveys over six decades on politics, culture, ideology, religion, education, national security, and other topics. These surveys have been characterized as a reference for policy and decision-makers across Israel’s political spectrum.[23] Data Israel, an online database created and administered by the Center, contains hundreds of polls conducted from 1967 onward and research reports dating to 1949. It has been described as Israel’s second-largest database after the Central Bureau of Statistics, a comparative characterization for which the directory page does not supply methodology.[23]

The Peace Index was a separate public-opinion project run by IDI and the Open University, with the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University described as having initiated it in June 1994. It followed Israeli opinion concerning the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict and its effects on Israeli society.[5][24] An INSS analysis used Peace Index results alongside other polling evidence to discuss voters’ priorities and election campaigns. It notes that Peace Index data were unavailable for 2003, so the analysis used National Election Studies data for that year, and cautions that differing survey methods may yield different estimates.[5]

A January 2003 Peace Index poll found that 45% of voters considered economic rehabilitation the incoming government’s top priority, while 42% prioritized resolving the conflict. The analysis quoted the poll’s authors’ conclusion that “for the public, the social-economic issue does not lag behind the security issue.”[5] In November 2005, 52% of voters named socioeconomic considerations as the major factor in their voting decisions, compared with 27% who cited security-political issues. In February 2006, 47% identified security as the paramount election factor and 37% thought socioeconomic issues would decide the election; the analysis said it was difficult to pinpoint the reason for the change between the polls.[5]

For the 2008–09 period, an October 2008 poll found that 47% of interviewees considered parties’ positions on security and peace most important, 23% named social and educational issues, and 13% named the economy. A survey a few months after the new government formed found that 62% viewed the economic crisis as the government’s most important problem and 27% named negotiations with Palestinians.[5] In 2013, 51% of Jewish voters cited domestic matters—religion, society, and the economy—as driving their vote, compared with 22.8% who cited foreign and defense issues; the study summarized the result as showing domestic issues to be paramount.[5]

The institute’s polling has also been used by other researchers. A 2024 Institute for Jewish Policy Research report drew Israeli-attitude data from IDI’s Viterbi Family Center and described it as an independent center focused on gathering, analyzing, and preserving empirical data on Israeli society. Citing IDI data collected in April 2024, it reported that 64% of Israelis viewed the country’s overall situation as bad and 11% as good, describing the negative assessment as the strongest in the series since it began in 2003.[25] Tamar Hermann is a senior research fellow and academic director of the Viterbi Family Center; she has described her monthly polls as focusing on national security, democracy, the economy, and social cohesion.[26]

IDI has used forums and public programs to bring policymakers and groups from across Israeli society into discussion. Initiatives listed in the Ministry of Education’s Israel Prize profile include the Caesarea economic conference, a Prime Minister’s Forum, an Army-Society Forum, a Police-Society Forum, and roundtable discussions. The Prime Minister’s Forum brought together representatives of religious Zionism and Arab citizens, while the Army-Society Forum involved discussions between Israel Defense Forces General Staff members and public figures.[8]

The institute’s activities have also included structured conversations on religion and state, with the aim of finding compromise on issues such as Shabbat and marriage.[8] In 2010, a Caesarea Forum meeting held in Nazareth under the theme “One State, One Economy” discussed economic and social conditions, including employment and economic issues affecting Arab and ultra-Orthodox communities. The institute invited several dozen local residents, including businesspeople and third-sector representatives; coverage recorded both participants who welcomed the attention and others who questioned the forum’s motives or criticized its discussions.[27]

IDI’s constitutional activity included the “Constitution by Consensus” initiative, launched in 2000. In 2005, the institute established an association chaired by former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar, who also led the team drafting a proposed constitution. The association and the institute sought to raise public awareness and encourage decision-makers to enact a constitution.[8]

A 2006 account described the draft as prepared by legal scholars under Shamgar’s supervision after four years of consultation with hundreds of leaders from different sectors of Israeli society. The proposal retained the basic structure of Israel’s political system, enumerated personal and human rights, and described Israel as a Jewish state.[28] The same report said its provisions prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, including during a state of emergency, and provided for prompt judicial review of arrests and access to legal counsel. It also described a proposed limit of 18 government ministers and budget principles including reducing economic inequality, transparency, efficiency, fairness, and accountability.[28]

IDI also campaigned to repeal direct election of the prime minister; the Ministry of Education profile says the campaign succeeded in 2001.[8] The institute developed an online “Democracy Compass” that allowed voters to compare their views with those of political parties through a series of questions. Approximately 800,000 people took part, according to the same profile.[8]

Public-facing education and information have accompanied its policy work. The institute established an Israeli Democracy Library, published the media-criticism journal The Seventh Eye—which the profile said was then appearing online—and ran a program to teach democratic values to Israeli students.[8] Its election website has offered current analysis and opinion pieces, podcasts, biographies of prominent leaders across the political spectrum, past election results by party, and Hebrew copies of most parties’ platforms.[29] More broadly, IDI presents analysis, podcasts, videos, and public-opinion surveys as part of its effort to inform discussion of Israeli governance and democracy.[30]

IDI’s 2025 annual report lists five research and policy centers. The Center for Democratic Values and Institutions works on constitutional and democratic institutions; the Center for Governance and the Economy addresses economic and governance reform; the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Center for Shared Society focuses on social cohesion and religion-state tensions; the Center for Security and Democracy examines security policy consistent with a free society; and the Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research conducts research on Israeli public opinion.[1]

Yohanan Plesner has served as president since 2014. IDI’s profile credits his tenure with reorganizing the institute around five research and policy centers, nearly doubling its annual budget, creating a communications division, and expanding its work with government. It also says that after Israel’s 2023 social and political crisis, he oversaw IDI’s emergence as a prominent public advocate for constitutional reform.[31] Earlier in his career, Plesner served in the Knesset from 2007 to 2013, including on the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee and the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.[31]

Tamar Hermann is a senior research fellow and academic director of the Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research. Her work includes monthly polling on national security, democracy, the economy, and social cohesion.[26] In 2019, Karnit Flug joined as vice president of government and economy, with a research remit covering prosperity, stability, mobility, productivity, and long-term growth.[16]

IDI operates as a nonpartisan, independent research-and-action center committed to strengthening Israeli democracy and working between politics and academic research.[8][29] The Association for Israel Studies’ directory, dated December 2024, lists Plesner as president and gives the institute’s address as 4 Pinsker Street, Talbieh, Jerusalem.[32]

The Israel Prize awarded IDI its prize for lifetime achievement and special contribution to society and the state in 2009.[2][3] The Ministry of Education’s profile describes the institute as serving policymakers, the legislature, and other bodies through research, and credits its programs with promoting dialogue across Israeli society.[8]

The institute’s policy model has included both direct advice and institutional capacity-building. Its publications and comparative research have been directed to decision-makers and the public, while its legislative work has sought to identify problems in proposed bills and recommend changes.[8][15] Its account of training Knesset assistants and contributing to the establishment of the Knesset Research and Information Center illustrates an effort to build research capacity within the legislature.[8]

The Democracy Index has tracked public trust, democratic values, government performance, and views of Israel’s national character over successive annual editions.[4][10] The Peace Index and related polling documented shifts in how voters weighed security, the economy, and domestic policy.[5] The institute’s data have also been used in external research on Israeli society and public attitudes.[23][25]

Alongside its annual Democracy Index, the institute has developed survey databases and an online voter-comparison tool.[8][23] It has also produced election resources and public forums.[8][29] Its work has consequently involved not only producing analysis but also making research available to policymakers, media, educators, and the wider public.[1][2]

IDI’s political orientation and its “Constitution by Consensus” proposal have been the subject of public disagreement. In a 2009 opinion article, Yitzhak Klein argued that the proposal would strengthen the judiciary at the expense of elected branches and weaken Israel’s Jewish character; these were the author’s criticisms, not neutral findings.[6] In a separate opinion response, IDI vice president Yedidia Stern rejected the claim that the institute sought to diminish Israel’s Jewish character. Stern said the institute studied Israel as both a democratic and Jewish state, described the proposed constitution as defining Israel in those terms, and argued that the Knesset—not the courts—would have the final word on personal law, conversion, and Shabbat.[7]

The exchange reflects disagreement about constitutional design and the relationship between Israel’s Jewish character, democratic institutions, and judicial authority. The bundle documents the competing positions but does not establish either author’s interpretation as a settled account of the proposal.[6][7]

[8]: Israel Prize, Ministry of Education, https://israel-prize.education.gov.il/israel-prize-recipients/pras-israel-catalog/israel-democracy-institute/ [1]: Israel Democracy Institute, Annual Report 2025, https://en.idi.org.il/media/30733/2025-english-annual-report.pdf [4]: Israel Democracy Institute, Israeli Democracy Index, https://en.idi.org.il/centers/1159/1519 [5]: Institute for National Security Studies, Strategic Assessment, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_Kornberg.pdf [2]: Israel Democracy Institute, About IDI, https://en.idi.org.il/about/about-idi/ [9]: Institute for National Security Studies, Strategic Assessment, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/adkan20-2ENG_4-127-137.pdf [2]: Israel Democracy Institute, About IDI, https://en.idi.org.il/about/about-idi/ [10]: The Israeli Democracy Index, Israel Democracy Institute, hosted by BJPA, https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/c__c/Index2012%20-%20Eng.pdf [3]: Israel Democracy Institute, Dr. Arye Carmon, https://en.idi.org.il/experts/3771 [11]: Israel Democracy Institute, Secretary George Shultz, IDI Co-Founder and Honorary Chair, https://en.idi.org.il/centers/58843 [12]: Ynet, https://www.ynet.co.il/economy/article/h1dtxapb1e [13]: Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, Research Institutes in Jerusalem, https://jerusaleminstitute.org.il/en/blog/research_institutes_jerusalem/ [14]: Jewish Virtual Library, hosting the Israel Democracy Institute’s 2007 report, https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/democracyindex07.pdf [15]: Israel Democracy Institute, Turning Research into Action, https://en.idi.org.il/articles/3234 [16]: Calcalist Tech, https://www.calcalistech.com/articles/0,7340,L-3761355,00.html [17]: JPR Archive, The 2003 Israeli Democracy Index: Measuring Israeli Democracy, https://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-bjpa18465 [18]: Center for Israel Education, Israel Democracy Institute 2019 Democracy Index, https://israeled.org/israel-democracy-institute-2019-democracy-index/ [19]: Mako, https://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/2021_q1/Article-7391d4c4f8ee671026.htm [20]: The Times of Israel, https://www.timesofisrael.com/annual-poll-publics-faith-in-institutions-satisfaction-in-state-of-country-dire/ [21]: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pdf/view/17794/en [22]: Israel Democracy Institute, The Israeli Democracy Index 2025: Selected Findings, https://en.idi.org.il/publications/62717 [23]: Association for Israel Studies, Data Resources, https://aisisraelstudies.org/resource/resource-4/ [24]: Jewish Virtual Library, The Israel Peace Index, https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-israel-peace-index [5]: Institute for National Security Studies, Strategic Assessment, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_Kornberg.pdf [5]: Institute for National Security Studies, Strategic Assessment, https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_Kornberg.pdf [25]: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, What Do Jews in the UK Think of Israel and Its Leadership?, https://www.jpr.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Israel-politicians-report-Sep-2024-jpr.Final_.pdf [26]: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/israels-most-consequential-election [27]: Ynet, https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3906903,00.html [28]: The Jerusalem Post, https://www.jpost.com/israel/democracy-institute-offers-constitution/article-21187 [28]: The Jerusalem Post, https://www.jpost.com/israel/democracy-institute-offers-constitution/article-21187 [29]: Center for Israel Education, Useful Links for the 2019 Israeli Elections, https://israeled.org/useful-links-for-the-2019-israeli-elections/ [30]: Center for Israel Education, The Israeli Political System, https://israeled.org/the-israeli-political-system/ [31]: Israel Democracy Institute, Yohanan Plesner, https://en.idi.org.il/experts/1305 [33]: World Jewish Congress, https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/podcasts-shows/show/11 [32]: Association for Israel Studies, Israel Studies Centers and Chairs, https://aisisraelstudies.org/resource/resource-2/ [6]: Yitzhak Klein, opinion article, The Jerusalem Post, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/article-140338 [7]: Yedidia Stern, opinion response, The Jerusalem Post, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/right-of-reply-the-jewish-case-for-the-israel-democracy-institute/