The proposed judicial reforms curtail Israel’s Supreme Court‘s power to revoke laws, give politicians the power to appoint judges and the Knesset power to override court decisions with a simple majority. All this doesn’t look good as far as keeping church and state separate goes. Israel does not have a codified constitution, or a federal system, and its parliament is unicameral. Of its 9 million citizens, 1.5 million are Arabs. Then there are 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank. In such a context, the court is the upholder of liberal democratic values.
Yes, reforms are necessary. But important constitutional issues such as defining the balance between parliament and judiciary, and deciding who has the power to strike down laws should be codified to avoid exactly the sort of perceived attempts being made by Netanyahu. Instead, the ‘reforms’ are viewed as Netanyahu’s attempt to garner more power to fashion a certain ‘kind’ of Israel amenable to his rule. This is not recognising the will of the majority, but the imposition of the will of the majority on all – majoritarianism. A democracy is only as robust as its institutions and the system of checks and balances that safeguards their independence. The fact that enough citizens, even if ‘only’ a voluble minority, are deeply uncomfortable with any dilution of power of the judiciary should be enough for any democratic leader to rethink what they may be hard-selling as reforms.
