The People’s Party as a Political Startup: Building Electoral Value from Vision to National Leadership

By Ronen Kolton Yehuda (MKR: Messiah King RKY)

Introduction: From a Political Idea to a National Framework

A new political party does not begin with mandates. It does not begin with ministers, parliamentary authority, national influence, or the ability to form a government. It begins with an idea, a founder, a name, a direction, and a decision to approach the public with a political proposal.

This is how I think about the possible establishment of Mifleget Ha’am — the People’s Party.

At its earliest stage, the People’s Party would begin with me as its founder and proposed leader. It would not yet have demonstrated electoral power. It would not yet have a large professional team, an existing parliamentary faction, or a proven voter base. In practical political terms, its initial measurable value would be low, because it would still have to earn public trust, attract serious people, create organizational capacity, and prove that voters are interested in the framework it proposes.

In that limited but useful sense, a new political party can be compared to a startup.

A startup often begins with one founder, or a small founding group, an idea, an initial model, and an ambition to develop into something much larger. At the beginning, its value may be uncertain because it has not yet demonstrated its ability to succeed. Its value grows only when it attracts people, partners, investment, users, public recognition, revenue, or strategic importance.

A political party is not a business. It should never be treated as the private property of its founder. It belongs, democratically, to the public that chooses whether to support it. Still, the startup comparison helps explain the process by which a political initiative may develop: from an initial idea with almost no demonstrated electoral strength into a serious national platform capable of gaining mandates, creating alliances, and potentially leading a government.

In a political framework, the central measure is not financial valuation. It is what I call electoral value.

Electoral value is the ability of a political initiative to attract citizens, leaders, professionals, existing political forces, public legitimacy, and, ultimately, votes. It is the strength that can be measured through public participation, credible polling, electoral results, coalition possibilities, and the ability to govern responsibly.

The ambition of the People’s Party would not be merely to establish another small party in an already divided political arena. The ambition would be to build a broad Israeli national framework that can begin from an early-stage initiative, grow through public support and meaningful political cooperation, and eventually compete as a major governing force — potentially even a party of more than 40 mandates, capable of seeking to lead Israel’s next government.

That ambition must be discussed seriously. It cannot be declared as though it has already happened. It must be earned.

The Legal and Democratic Starting Point of a New Party

The startup analogy begins with a simple reality: before a political party can become a significant national force, it must first exist as an organized initiative.

Under the Israeli system, one hundred or more adult Israeli citizens who are residents of Israel may establish a political party through registration with the Registrar of Political Parties. Registration creates a legal political organization, but it does not provide that organization with seats in the Knesset, governing authority, or electoral success. Those must come later through public support and elections. (Government of Israel)

This distinction is important.

At the founding stage, the People’s Party would represent a proposal to the public. It could define its identity, formulate its principles, gather founding participants, create a responsible organizational structure, and begin presenting its national vision. But it would still be at the beginning of the political process. Its real strength would have to be built, tested, and proven.

In other words, the establishment of a political party is not the achievement of power. It is the creation of a vehicle through which the public may later choose to grant power.

This is similar to establishing a startup company. Registering a company does not prove that it has a valuable product, a successful market, or a profitable future. It creates the framework through which these things may be developed. Likewise, registering a party does not prove that it can win mandates or lead a country. It creates the framework through which public trust, political organization, and electoral support may be pursued.

The People’s Party would therefore begin honestly: not as an existing major force, but as an attempt to build one.

Its initial assets would be a founder, a political name, a proposed national direction, and the willingness to bring the idea before citizens and potential partners. Its initial weakness would be equally clear: without proven public support, it would begin without mandates and without demonstrated influence.

That does not make the initiative meaningless. It makes the challenge real.

Israel’s Electoral System and the Meaning of Electoral Value

The concept of electoral value must be understood within Israel’s actual electoral system.

Israel has a parliamentary system. Citizens do not directly elect a prime minister on a separate ballot. Instead, they vote for candidate lists in national elections to the Knesset. Israel uses nationwide proportional representation, in which voters elect a candidate list rather than a district representative. The Knesset has 120 members, and the entire country functions as one national electoral district. (Government of Israel)

At present, a candidate list must receive at least 3.25 percent of valid votes in order to participate in the distribution of Knesset seats. (Knesset)

These rules create both an opportunity and a difficulty for a new political party.

The opportunity is that a new list does not have to win individual geographic districts one by one. It can appeal nationally to Israeli voters under one name and one candidate list. If it attracts sufficient public support and passes the threshold, it can gain representation.

The difficulty is that before reaching that point, a new party must persuade voters that supporting it is worthwhile. Voters may hesitate to support an unproven initiative if they are uncertain whether it can pass the threshold, attract serious leaders, or play a meaningful role in government formation.

This is why the idea of electoral value is important.

Electoral value is not simply popularity. It is not merely social media attention, favorable comments, or the personal ambition of a founder. Electoral value includes the credibility of the party’s national program, the public confidence inspired by its leadership, the seriousness of the people who join it, its ability to represent voters across different communities, its organizational capacity, its performance in credible polling, its ability to pass the electoral threshold, its eventual number of Knesset mandates, and its capacity to build or join a responsible governing coalition.

A political party may be legally registered yet possess little electoral value. Another may have broad public support, major public figures, a strong candidate list, and the possibility of leading a government. The difference between these two stages is the process of political value creation.

The proposed purpose of the People’s Party would be to move through that process deliberately and openly: from a new initiative toward a major national platform.

The Startup Comparison: Useful, but Limited

The idea of comparing a political party to a startup should be approached carefully.

A startup is usually founded to create commercial or technological value. It may seek investment, customers, market share, profitability, and expansion. Its founders may retain ownership rights, issue shares, or negotiate financial valuations.

A democratic political party is fundamentally different. A party is not a private asset to be owned in the same way as a company. It competes for public trust. Its success is determined by citizens. It must be accountable to the law, to democratic rules, to its members, to its voters, and, if elected, to the entire country.

Therefore, the comparison should not be understood in terms of private ownership. It should be understood in terms of development, growth, and value creation.

In a startup, the founder begins with an idea and then tries to build a product, attract a team, prove demand, create partnerships, and scale the venture. In a political party, the founder begins with a political initiative and then tries to build a national program, attract people, prove public support, create alliances, win mandates, and govern responsibly.

The comparison becomes meaningful because both models begin with uncertainty.

At the beginning, a founder may believe strongly in a startup, but the market has not yet validated it. Similarly, I may believe in the potential of the People’s Party, but the public must still decide whether it deserves support. The party cannot assume mandates in advance. It cannot assume that recognized leaders will join it. It cannot assume that voters will accept its leadership arrangement.

It must create reasons for them to do so.

A political initiative develops electoral value only when people beyond the founder begin to see it as credible, serious, and useful for the future of the country.

The Founder and Proposed Leader: An Initiative, Not an Automatic Entitlement

The People’s Party would begin with me, Ronen Kolton Yehuda, as its founder and proposed leader.

This does not mean that founding a party automatically grants national leadership. It means that I would initiate the framework, formulate its purpose, present its direction, and offer myself as the person seeking to lead it.

In a serious democratic model, leadership is not established only through personal ambition. It requires acceptance. It requires citizens who decide to support the party. It requires public figures and professionals who may believe the framework is worth joining. It requires an electoral result strong enough to give the party meaningful parliamentary standing. And, in Israel’s parliamentary system, becoming prime minister requires the ability to form a government that receives the confidence of the Knesset.

After elections, the process of forming a government depends on parliamentary support. The president assigns a Knesset member the task of forming a government, and the proposed government must receive the confidence of the Knesset. Israeli governments have historically been coalition governments, meaning that electoral strength must usually be translated into agreements with additional parliamentary factions. (Israeli Democracy Institute)

Therefore, the leadership model I propose should be expressed responsibly.

I would seek to found and lead the People’s Party. I would seek to build it into a broad national political framework. I would seek to attract citizens, professionals, and political partners who share enough common ground to cooperate responsibly. If that framework later wins substantial public support and is positioned to form a coalition, I would seek to become prime minister as its leader.

This is not a claim that the public has already chosen me. It is a political proposal that I would present to the public.

That distinction matters. A serious political movement must combine ambition with democratic humility. It must be able to say: this is the leadership I propose; these are the principles I propose; this is the national framework I seek to build; and the public will determine its strength.

How a New Political Initiative Builds Electoral Value

At its beginning, a new party may have a name and a vision, but little measurable power. To grow, it must build several forms of electoral value at the same time.

First, it must build intellectual and programmatic value. A political party must answer why it exists. The People’s Party cannot be only a vehicle for candidacy. It would need to present a serious national program: what it believes Israel needs, what it would prioritize, what it would change, and what kind of government it seeks to lead.

A party that wishes to grow into a national governing force would need responsible positions on security, the economy, cost of living, education, infrastructure, public administration, international relations, social cohesion, culture, regional development, and democratic stability.

Ideas alone do not win elections, but without ideas a party has no foundation for responsible leadership.

Second, it must build leadership value. A party’s leadership affects whether voters believe it can govern. The founder brings the original initiative, but a governing party requires more than one person. It requires people capable of handling security, economics, foreign policy, education, social affairs, law, infrastructure, and public administration. A credible team increases electoral value because it reassures voters that the party is not only an idea but also a possible government.

Third, it must build organizational value. A political party must organize. It needs legal establishment, internal rules, candidate-selection procedures or founding agreements, campaign administration, communication, volunteers, regional representation, public engagement, and financial transparency in accordance with the law. Without organization, even a good political idea can remain only a written proposal.

Fourth, it must build public value. Ultimately, a party exists only if citizens consider it relevant. Public value can begin with conversations, articles, public meetings, membership, online engagement, and volunteers. But it must eventually be tested more seriously through credible surveys and elections. A party that wishes to claim national importance cannot rely only on its own confidence. It must be willing to measure whether the public agrees.

Fifth, it must build alliance value. In a fragmented political system, cooperation can be central. A new party may attract individual public figures. It may reach agreements with existing movements. It may create a unified electoral list with other parties. It may also seek coalition cooperation after elections without requiring a full merger beforehand. Each of these possibilities may increase electoral value — but only if voters see the cooperation as serious, coherent, and beneficial.

Political Alliances as Value Creation — but Not Simple Addition

The strongest part of the startup comparison may be the role of partnerships.

When a startup attracts respected partners, experienced executives, or important investors, its perceived value may rise substantially. Similarly, when a political initiative attracts established public figures or political forces, it may gain credibility, reach new voters, and become capable of competing at a much higher level.

However, political alliances cannot be calculated like a simple financial addition.

If one party is projected to receive ten mandates and another is projected to receive ten mandates, their merger does not automatically guarantee twenty mandates. Some voters may support the alliance, some may dislike it, some may leave, and other voters who were previously undecided may newly support it because the alliance appears more capable of governing.

Recent Israeli politics demonstrates this clearly.

In April 2026, former prime minister Naftali Bennett and opposition leader Yair Lapid announced a combined electoral slate called “Together — Led by Bennett.” A Channel 12 poll reported by The Times of Israel projected that the combined slate would receive 26 seats and become the largest party, ahead of Likud at 25 seats. Yet the combined result was one seat fewer than Bennett’s and Lapid’s separate parties had received in the preceding Channel 12 poll. In other words, the merger improved their position as a unified leading list, but it did not simply add or increase their prior support. (The Times of Israel)

The same survey presented another scenario: if Gadi Eisenkot joined Bennett and Lapid in one list, the unified party was projected to receive 41 seats. This did not mean that the alliance existed or that the result was guaranteed. It demonstrated a political possibility: under certain conditions, a broader and more convincing leadership framework could create far greater electoral value than separate parties or a narrower alliance. (The Times of Israel)

This is the model I would consider for the People’s Party.

The party could begin with very limited electoral value. If serious figures later joined it, it could gain greater credibility. If political movements or parties agreed to cooperate within a shared national framework, its reach could expand further. If the public responded positively, it might develop into a major political force.

But it would be wrong to assume that every merger automatically increases support. A broad party must have a convincing reason to exist. Its leadership must make sense to voters. Its participants must represent a compatible national direction. Its unity must be perceived not as opportunism, but as a practical and responsible alternative for government.

Three Possible Forms of Growth for the People’s Party

The People’s Party could develop through several possible political paths.

The first path is individual joining. In this model, the party remains a newly established framework, and individual public figures choose to join it as candidates, advisers, or supporters. These people could include professionals with experience in security, economics, diplomacy, law, education, culture, infrastructure, municipal leadership, or social policy. Their contribution would not necessarily be measured only in pre-existing voter support. Some would bring knowledge, reputation, governing experience, or public confidence. This model allows the party to remain organizationally new while strengthening its seriousness.

The second path is a unified list. In this model, existing parties or political movements may agree to run together in one shared electoral framework. Such a model would require significant agreements: who leads the list, how positions are allocated, what policy platform is common to all participants, what decisions remain open, and how the unified movement intends to govern. This could generate major electoral value if voters believe that several fragmented alternatives are becoming one credible national option. However, it could also create difficulties if voters perceive the alliance as internally inconsistent or if participating leaders cannot agree on leadership and policy.

The third path is cooperation without full merger. In this model, different parties remain separate but state in advance that they are prepared to cooperate after the election around certain national principles and a possible governing coalition. This model preserves each party’s independent identity, but it may be less powerful in presenting a single major alternative to voters. It can also leave uncertainty about who would lead the government and how stable cooperation would be after the election.

The People’s Party would need to examine which model best creates electoral value without sacrificing clarity, seriousness, or democratic legitimacy.

A Staged Growth Model: From Initial Initiative to Government Candidate

The establishment and development of the People’s Party can be understood as a gradual process.

At the first stage, the party exists as an initial political concept. Its name, basic purpose, founder, and proposed direction are presented. The electoral value at this point is mainly conceptual. There is not yet proven voter support or organizational strength. The central task is to explain why the party should exist and what national need it seeks to answer.

At the second stage, the party would seek formal establishment and founding principles. It would need a serious document defining its purpose, leadership structure, democratic commitments, accountability mechanisms, and initial policy direction. The electoral value would still be limited, but the initiative would become more concrete and organized.

At the third stage, the party would speak to citizens directly. Articles, public statements, meetings, digital communication, and public dialogue could help present the party’s vision. Supporters could begin identifying with the initiative. Volunteers and professionals might begin participating. This stage is important because it would show whether the idea interests the public beyond the founder himself.

At the fourth stage, the party would need to build a serious team. A party aspiring to govern would need people capable of strengthening it. A serious team might include figures with expertise in security, economic management, law, foreign relations, local government, education, social policy, technology, infrastructure, and culture. At this stage, the party’s electoral value could increase because citizens would begin to see a possible leadership group rather than only an individual proposal.

At the fifth stage, the party would need to measure public response. Credible polling, public events, membership growth, and public attention could help indicate whether the party has a realistic path toward passing the electoral threshold and obtaining representation. A responsible movement must be prepared to learn from public response, adjust its message where appropriate, and avoid presenting expectations as facts.

At the sixth stage, the party could explore alliances and mergers. If the party demonstrated potential, it could become relevant to established public figures or political organizations considering cooperation. This is where the idea of electoral value becomes especially practical. A partnership should be examined according to whether it expands support, strengthens public trust, improves governing capability, and creates a clearer national alternative. An alliance that merely distributes positions among politicians without persuading new voters would have limited value. An alliance that unites different strengths around a credible program could change the political map.

At the seventh stage, the party or unified list would present its candidates, leadership, and platform in a national election campaign. At this stage, voters would be asked to decide whether the People’s Party had developed from an initiative into a serious political choice.

At the eighth stage, only election results can translate electoral value into actual parliamentary representation. If the party won a small number of mandates, it might participate modestly in political life. If it won a significant number, it might influence coalition negotiations. If it became one of the largest or the largest party, it could seek to lead the process of government formation.

The political startup would then have moved from vision to responsibility.

The Objective of More Than 40 Mandates

The ambition I propose for the People’s Party is deliberately substantial.

The objective would not be merely to pass the 3.25 percent electoral threshold or enter the Knesset as another small faction. Israel already has a fragmented political landscape. The purpose of establishing a new party should not be to add further fragmentation without a serious national reason.

The purpose should be to build a broad platform capable of becoming a leading governing force.

In a Knesset of 120 members, more than 40 mandates would represent an exceptional level of public support for a single list. It would not automatically create a government, because a government still requires sufficient parliamentary backing and the confidence of the Knesset. But it would place such a party in a very strong position to lead coalition negotiations and present its leader as a serious candidate for prime minister.

The late-April 2026 polling scenario in which a Bennett–Lapid–Eisenkot list was projected at 41 seats demonstrates that, under certain political conditions, a large unified list above the 40-mandate level can exist as a credible electoral scenario in contemporary Israeli politics. It does not prove that any different proposed party will achieve the same result. It does, however, demonstrate that a broad alliance perceived by voters as serious can generate a scale of electoral value far greater than that of a new party operating alone. (The Times of Israel)

For the People’s Party, the 40+ mandate objective would represent a strategic destination: to become large enough to lead rather than merely participate; to unite citizens who may currently be divided among several political alternatives; to attract experienced figures and serious new leadership; to build a platform able to negotiate a stable coalition; to present a candidate for prime minister from within the party’s leadership; and to seek responsibility for the direction of the State of Israel.

This must remain an ambition subject to democratic proof. A new party cannot declare itself a 40-mandate party merely because that is its goal. It must become worthy of such support in the eyes of citizens.

Why Established People or Parties Would Consider Joining

A reasonable question must be addressed directly: why would recognized political figures or existing parties consider joining a new framework that begins with me?

They would not join simply because I declare an ambition. Serious political figures would need serious reasons.

A new framework could become attractive if it demonstrated several things.

It would need to present a meaningful national program rather than only a personal candidacy. It would need to show that it can reach people who are not currently being represented adequately by existing parties. It would need to demonstrate organizational seriousness, political responsibility, and a willingness to work with experienced people rather than relying only on personal declarations. It would need to offer a leadership model and shared platform that could produce more electoral value than the existing fragmented alternatives. And it would need public evidence — support, membership, credible polling, or broader public interest — showing that joining it is not an act of political disappearance, but an opportunity to build something larger.

This is again where the startup comparison becomes useful. Major partners do not usually join an unproven venture only because the founder believes in it. They join when they see potential, structure, public demand, and a realistic path to success.

The same would be true in politics.

If the People’s Party remained only an idea associated with one person, it would be unlikely to attract broad political participation. If it became a serious framework with public support, a credible program, competent people, and evidence of electoral potential, it could become a platform worth considering.

The responsibility of the founder is therefore not merely to invite others to join. It is to build something that is worthy of joining.

The Current Political Context: Fragmentation, Alliances, and Opportunity

Any discussion of a new political framework in Israel must recognize the political context in which it would arise.

Israel’s parliamentary system frequently produces coalition governments because multiple parties compete in a nationwide proportional system. This reality means that even a strong party usually needs partners in order to govern.

In May 2026, Israel moved closer to a possible early election when the Knesset gave preliminary approval to a bill to dissolve itself. Reuters reported that the Knesset voted 110–0 in a preliminary reading to dissolve the 120-seat body, and that if the process were finalized, elections could be held ahead of the October 27, 2026 deadline. Reuters also reported that polls indicated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition was unlikely to secure a majority, while opposition parties could also face difficulty forming a government. (Reuters)

This political situation creates both demand and competition for new frameworks.

It creates demand because voters may be interested in alternatives capable of producing stable leadership rather than continuing political deadlock. It creates competition because recognized parties and leaders are already attempting to position themselves as the alternative government.

A proposed People’s Party would therefore enter a serious and demanding environment. It could not rely only on dissatisfaction with existing politics. It would have to explain what distinct value it offers, why its leadership is credible, why its proposed partnerships make sense, and how it could build a coalition capable of governing responsibly.

A new party succeeds not merely by saying that the country needs change. Many political movements say that. It succeeds only if citizens believe that it offers a better and more practical path to that change.

Democratic Legitimacy: From a Founder’s Initiative to a People’s Party

The name People’s Party carries a responsibility.

A party may begin with one founder, but it cannot become a genuine people’s party merely by using the name. It must be open to the public, accountable in its conduct, and respectful of democratic institutions.

If I were to establish the People’s Party, its legitimacy would depend on public accountability, responsible leadership, clear policy direction, transparent political partnerships, and respect for democratic institutions.

The party would need to speak honestly about its stage of development. At the beginning, it would be a proposed movement, not yet an established electoral force. As it grows, its statements should distinguish between goals, polling scenarios, agreements, and actual achievements.

The party should also be led with seriousness rather than exaggeration. A leader may present a large ambition, including the ambition to become prime minister, but must recognize that the authority to grant political power belongs to voters and to the parliamentary process.

A broad party cannot be built only around personalities. It needs common positions sufficient to govern. Citizens must know what they are voting for, not only whom they are voting for.

If established figures or parties join the framework, the public should understand the nature of the agreement: leadership, candidate selection, policy basis, and governing intention.

The People’s Party should aim to govern within Israel’s democratic system, uphold the rule of law, respect the Knesset and public institutions, and treat political power as responsibility rather than entitlement.

The startup analogy must end where democratic authority begins. A founder can create a framework and work to increase its electoral value. But only the people can turn it into a governing party.

From Electoral Value to Governing Value

Electoral value matters because mandates matter. But mandates are not the final purpose of a political party.

A party that seeks more than 40 mandates must also explain what it intends to do with such responsibility.

If the People’s Party grew into a leading national force, it would need to present a serious governmental agenda. That agenda should not be based only on winning an election or replacing other political actors. It should be based on the long-term interests of Israel and its citizens.

A national governing party should be prepared to address security and the protection of Israeli citizens, national resilience during periods of conflict, economic opportunity, the cost of living, public infrastructure, transportation, regional development, education, science, culture, technological innovation, effective public administration, international relations, social cohesion, democratic stability, and a positive vision for the country’s future.

This is the difference between a political campaign and a governing movement.

A political campaign asks citizens for votes. A governing movement must also be prepared to carry the burden of decisions after those votes are received.

Therefore, the objective of electoral value should not be power for its own sake. It should be the creation of a mandate for responsible national leadership.

The Strategic Question: Can a New Framework Become Larger Than the Existing Alternatives?

The central strategic question behind the People’s Party is not whether a new party can technically be founded. It can.

The central question is whether it can offer enough political value to become larger than the alternatives that already exist.

A new party would have to persuade citizens that it is not simply another temporary political project. It would have to show that it is capable of gathering serious people around a practical national program. It would need to attract voters from more than one narrow constituency. It would need to create confidence that a broad governing coalition could eventually be built around it.

The possibility of reaching more than 40 mandates would require much more than founder recognition. It would require a political event: the creation of a framework that many different voters regard as the most credible home for national leadership.

Such a result could theoretically come from a strong founder-led vision, a serious and respected governing team, the joining of public figures with real voter appeal, partnerships with political movements or parties, a message that reaches citizens across existing divisions, a national program that is both hopeful and practical, and a public sense that existing fragmented options cannot produce the necessary leadership.

This is why the People’s Party should not be described merely as a personal political ambition. It should be described as an attempt to construct a wider platform: a political organization whose value can become greater than the value of its individual components.

In business language, this might be called synergy. In democratic politics, it is better described as public confidence in a credible union.

The Difference Between a Dream and a Political Plan

There is nothing wrong with having a large political ambition. Israel itself has often been shaped by ideas that initially appeared difficult or improbable.

But a professional political article must distinguish between a dream and a plan.

A dream is to say: I want to lead a party of more than 40 mandates and become prime minister.

A plan is more serious. It begins by saying that a new party must first be legally and organizationally founded. It must present a clear national program. It must build a credible team. It must earn initial public attention and support. It must measure its viability realistically. It must examine alliances according to the electoral value they create. It must present voters with a serious governing alternative. It must win sufficient mandates. It must be able to form a responsible coalition. Only then may its leader become prime minister through the democratic process.

The purpose of this article is to begin expressing such a plan.

The People’s Party would begin from a small position: a proposed initiative established by me, without existing mandates and without the power currently held by established political parties. But its initial smallness would not determine its final potential.

Its potential would be determined by whether it can create value for voters.

If it offers no meaningful difference, it will remain small. If it offers ideas but no organization, it will remain theoretical. If it gathers names but no shared direction, it will not persuade the public. But if it creates a serious platform, attracts capable people, builds political cooperation, and earns trust, it may grow far beyond its initial stage.

That is the political startup model: not the assumption of success, but a method for pursuing it.

Conclusion: From Founding Vision to National Responsibility

Mifleget Ha’am — the People’s Party — would begin with me as its founder and proposed leader. At the beginning, its measurable electoral value would be limited. It would not yet have mandates, an established parliamentary faction, a large political organization, or the authority to lead a government.

It would begin with something more basic: an idea, a purpose, and an invitation to build.

The startup comparison provides a useful way to understand this beginning. A startup may begin with little measurable value and grow through a strong concept, a serious team, strategic partnerships, and public demand. A political party may likewise begin with little electoral value and grow through public trust, capable leadership, organization, alliances, and votes.

But the political model must remain democratic. A party is not owned like a company. Its value is not determined by its founder alone. Its authority comes from citizens. Its mandates are earned in elections. Its ability to produce a prime minister depends on parliamentary support and the formation of a government that receives the Knesset’s confidence.

The People’s Party would therefore be an ambitious proposal, but not a claim of entitlement. Its purpose would be to seek a new national framework capable of bringing together citizens, professionals, experienced leaders, and possible political partners around a serious vision for Israel.

The goal would be substantial: not merely to enter the Knesset, but to build a major national movement capable of receiving more than 40 mandates, leading coalition negotiations, and presenting its leader as a credible candidate for prime minister.

Recent Israeli politics shows that the electoral value of political alliances can be significant. The reported 2026 polling scenario in which a possible Bennett–Lapid–Eisenkot list reached 41 projected mandates does not prove that any new party can assume such a result. The lesson is different: voters may give considerable strength to a broad political framework when they believe it offers credible leadership and a realistic opportunity to govern.

That is the challenge for the People’s Party.

It would have to begin small, present itself honestly, build responsibly, invite serious cooperation, and prove its value before the public. It would have to show that it is not merely another name in Israeli politics, but a possible platform for national leadership.

A political initiative can begin from almost nothing in measurable electoral strength. Through citizens, ideas, people, organization, and alliances, it may grow into something far greater.

The People’s Party would be my proposal to attempt that journey: from founding vision, to electoral value, to national responsibility.

Formal Declaration Concerning the Founding and Temporary Leadership of Mifleget Ha’am — The People’s Party

Declared by: Ronen Kolton Yehuda (MKR: Messiah King RKY)

I, Ronen Kolton Yehuda (MKR: Messiah King RKY), hereby state and clarify my intention regarding the proposed establishment and initial leadership framework of Mifleget Ha’am — The People’s Party.

1. Founder of the Party

I propose to establish Mifleget Ha’am — The People’s Party as a new democratic political framework in the State of Israel.

The initiative begins with me, Ronen Kolton Yehuda (MKR: Messiah King RKY), as its founder. The political vision, national direction, electoral-value model and governmental ambition described in this article are presented as the initial basis for the proposed party and its possible development.

At the time of this declaration, the People’s Party is presented as a proposed political initiative. It does not yet claim elected representation, Knesset mandates, governmental authority, established political alliances or proven electoral support. Any such authority or support would have to be lawfully and democratically earned.

2. Temporary Leadership of the Party

In addition to being the founder of the People’s Party, I propose to serve as its temporary leader during its initial establishment, organizational development and first national electoral effort.

The purpose of this temporary leadership would be to initiate and organize the party, present its political vision to the public, invite serious citizens, professionals, public figures and political partners to participate in its development, and seek to build it into a broad national framework capable of competing in democratic elections.

3. Intention to Run for Prime Minister

As the proposed temporary leader of the People’s Party, I further state my intention to seek to lead the party in a national election and to present myself, through that framework, as its candidate to become Prime Minister of Israel.

This intention is conditional upon the lawful establishment and development of the party, the creation of a credible political and organizational framework, sufficient democratic public support, the results of elections, and the parliamentary process required for the formation of a government in Israel.

Accordingly, this declaration is not a claim of existing authority or entitlement to office. It is a declaration of political intention: to found the People’s Party, to serve as its temporary leader during its initial electoral development, and to seek the public mandate required to lead a government.

4. Democratic Character of the Party

The designation of myself as founder and temporary leader is not intended to establish the People’s Party as my private property or as a political framework beyond public accountability.

The People’s Party is proposed as a democratic party whose legitimacy, electoral value and governing authority, if achieved, must arise from citizens, members, voters, lawful political procedures and the democratic institutions of the State of Israel.

Its future internal procedures, candidate list, leadership arrangements, political partnerships and possible continuation or replacement of temporary leadership would need to be determined responsibly, transparently and in accordance with the party’s lawful structure and democratic public mandate.

5. Purpose of the Temporary Leadership Framework

The purpose of temporary leadership is to provide a clear founding direction during the early stage of the party’s creation and electoral development.

The party would begin with me as its founder and temporary leader, but it would seek to grow beyond a single individual through public participation, serious professional involvement, political cooperation and democratic support.

If the People’s Party succeeds in earning sufficient electoral value and public trust, my intention would be to lead it in seeking governmental responsibility and to run, through its mandate and political framework, for the position of Prime Minister of Israel.

Declaration

I therefore declare that I propose myself as:

Founder of Mifleget Ha’am — The People’s Party;

Temporary Leader of Mifleget Ha’am — The People’s Party during its initial establishment and electoral development;
Proposed candidate of the party to run for Prime Minister of Israel, subject to democratic public support, election results and the lawful parliamentary process of forming a government.

Declared by:

Ronen Kolton Yehuda (MKR: Messiah King RKY)

References

Registrar of Political Parties Unit, Government of Israel, “About the Registrar of Political Parties Unit.”
Government of Israel, “Elections in Israel.”
The Knesset, “Electoral Threshold.”
Israel Democracy Institute, “Elections 101: Forming a Government After Elections.”
The Times of Israel, report on the Bennett–Lapid union and the Bennett–Lapid–Eisenkot 41-seat polling scenario, April 2026.
Reuters, report on the May 2026 preliminary Knesset vote to dissolve itself and the possibility of early elections.

Search This Blog

Ronen Kolton Yehuda (רונן קולטון יהודה) MKR: Messiah King RKY 👑💜🦁