The “reasonableness” theory, which gave Israel’s judiciary the authority to examine executive actions and laws passed by the Knesset, was abolished by a law passed by the Knesset last year.
Israel is governed by its Basic Laws, which maintain a balance between the various state institutions, rather than a codified constitution. As part of a plot to bring the courts under government control, the Netanyahu administration and the far-right parties supporting it changed the Basic Laws. In the lack of opposition, the Knesset passed it.
Source: Bloomberg.com
For several months, there were large-scale demonstrations in the streets against the legislation, which was obviously meant to undermine the nation’s democracy and citizens’ rights because judicial review is a crucial component of a democratic system. The country’s economy suffered, the administration came under pressure, and social and political divisions deepened as a result of the protests. In the court’s first-ever full sitting of its fifteen judges, the verdict was made by a slim majority of eight to seven.
It supported the idea that all actions made by the government must be justifiable. Per the court, the measure would have resulted in “severe and unprecedented damage to the basic characteristics of the State of Israel as a democratic state”. It was one of the measures Netanyahu had intended to weaken the Supreme Court by giving the Knesset the power to overturn court rulings and take command of judge nominations.
Fundamentally, Netanyahu’s proposal was an attempt to protect himself while he was on trial for corruption. The law’s architect, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, stated that the court’s decision “won’t demoralise us” and that it showed “the antithesis of the unity needed these days to ensure the success of our soldiers on the front.” The decision, according to Netanyahu’s Likud party, went against “the will of the people for unity, especially during wartime”.
Source: Bloomberg Television
They have made an effort to raise the national security scare and portray the court’s ruling as undermining the government during a time of war. To be sure, the war rendered “the ruling even more urgent, as it concerned the core principles that Israel’s soldiers are fighting for—a statement expressed correctly by a former Supreme Court judge.
The ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court ought to serve as motivation and a source of encouragement for judiciaries in other democratic nations that confront governments and authoritarian leaders who want to undermine democratic institutions and constitutional protections.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
