Israel’s Judicial Reforms: A Potential Danger to Democracy?

In 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration put forward extensive judicial reforms aimed at significantly diminishing the Supreme Court’s authority. These changes would give the executive branch more influence over judicial appointments and restrict the court’s ability to invalidate laws. Advocates believe these reforms are essential for reestablishing a balance between elected officials and appointed judges. However, opponents caution that they pose a serious threat to democratic checks and balances. By compromising judicial independence, these reforms reflect a broader trend of democratic decline, where elected leaders gradually weaken the institutional limits on their power. This post utilizes democratic theory and recent case studies to argue that Israel’s judicial changes threaten democratic governance by centralizing power within the executive and eroding vital safeguards against authoritarianism.

Understanding Israels Judicial Reforms

The suggested reforms bring about several significant changes that could reshape Israel’s judicial landscape:

Restricting Judicial Review: One of the key changes would limit the Supreme Court’s power to overturn government actions based on a “reasonableness” criterion. This would lessen judicial oversight and enable the executive branch to function with fewer legal limitations. (What You Need To Know About Israel’s Judicial Reforms | AJC).

Increased Government Influence on Judicial Appointments: The reforms aim to modify the Judicial Selection Committee’s makeup, giving the ruling coalition more power in selecting judges. This shift could result in a judiciary that aligns more closely with government interests, potentially compromising judicial independence. (Israel’s Judicial Reforms: What to Know | Council on Foreign Relations)

Parliamentary Power to Override Supreme Court Decisions: The new legislation would permit the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) to overturn Supreme Court rulings with just a simple majority. This would diminish the court’s role in checking government authority. (The Israeli Government’s Proposed Judicial Reforms: An Attack on Israeli Democracy | ConstitutionNet).

These proposed changes have led to widespread protests throughout Israel, with challengers claiming they threaten the judiciary’s essential function as a protector of democracy.

Democratic Backsliding and Executive Aggrandizement

Democratic backsliding is the slow decline of democratic systems, often led by elected officials who claim to be making legal and institutional improvements. Nancy Bermeo points out that one major way this happens is through executive aggrandizement, where leaders gradually reduce the checks on their power while still appearing democratic. (Bermeo 10).

The judicial reforms proposed by the Israeli government show clear signs of this executive aggrandizement:

Consolidating Power: By diminishing the independence of the judiciary, Netanyahu’s administration is lessening the limits on executive power.

Undermining Accountability: These reforms would hinder the ability of courts to challenge government actions, which is a crucial aspect of democratic accountability.

Weakening Minority Protections: Democracies depend on independent courts to safeguard minority rights from the majority’s will. A compromised judiciary may struggle to uphold this important function.

Global Parallels: Poland’s Judicial Overhaul

Israel’s proposed judicial reforms bear a striking similarity to what has happened in Poland, where the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) made extensive changes to the judiciary that compromised its independence. The Polish government took charge of judicial appointments and limited the courts’ power to contest executive actions, resulting in a notable decline in democratic standards (Poland appears to be dismantling its own hard-won democracy – The Washington Post). In response, the European Union (EU) initiated legal proceedings against Poland for breaching democratic principles. If Israel’s judicial reforms are seen as undermining democratic values, it could maybe face similar international repercussions.

Counterarguments

Supporters of the judicial reforms believe that Israel’s judiciary has gained too much power and lacks proper democratic oversight. They argue that the Supreme Court has gone beyond its limits by getting involved in political issues, and that these reforms will help restore balance by giving elected officials more say in judicial matters (Israeli Judicial Reform Is Not about Undermining Democracy | Hudson Institute).

However, this perspective misses the essential importance of judicial independence in a democracy. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point out, when judicial independence starts to fade, it often signals the beginning of democratic decline, as it removes a vital check on executive power (Levitsky and Ziblatt 77). If courts can’t function as impartial referees, there’s little to stop elected leaders from amassing power and eroding democratic principles.

The Risks of Israeli Democracy

If put into action, these judicial reforms could significantly impact Israeli democracy:

Undermining Checks and Balances: By diminishing the judiciary’s role in monitoring government activities, these changes would upset the power balance among government branches.

Diminishing Minority Rights: An independent judiciary is very important and without it, minority groups might experience increased legal and political exclusion.

Global Repercussions: A perceived decline in democracy could negatively affect Israel’s relationship with important allies like the United States and the European Union (The Risks Of Israel’s Judicial Reform | American Foreign Policy Council).

Conclusion

Israel’s proposed changes to the judicial system pose a major challenge to its democracy. Advocates claim these reforms are essential to limit judicial overreach, but they could actually weaken democratic institutions by diminishing judicial independence and boosting executive power. When viewed through the lens of democratic backsliding, these reforms mirror global patterns where elected officials gradually chip away at institutional checks to centralize their power.

Similar judicial reforms in Poland have resulted in a decline in democracy and increased international isolation. If Israel chooses to go down this road, it risks jeopardizing the democratic values that have long been a cornerstone of its political landscape. The outcome of this will not only influence Israel’s judiciary but also the overall direction of its democratic governance.

WORKS CITED

Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 27, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5-19.

“Israel’s Judicial Reforms: What to Know.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2023, Israel’s Judicial Reforms: What to Know | Council on Foreign Relations

“Israeli Judicial Reform Is Not about Undermining Democracy.” Hudson Institute, 2023, Israeli Judicial Reform Is Not about Undermining Democracy | Hudson Institute

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group, 2018.

“Poland Appears to Be Dismantling Its Own Hard-Won Democracy.” The Washington Post, 2017, Poland appears to be dismantling its own hard-won democracy – The Washington Post

“The Israeli Government’s Proposed Judicial Reforms: An Attack on Israeli Democracy.” ConstitutionNet, 2023, The Israeli Government’s Proposed Judicial Reforms: An Attack on Israeli Democracy | ConstitutionNet

“The Risks of Israel’s Judicial Reform.” American Foreign Policy Council, 2023, The Risks Of Israel’s Judicial Reform | American Foreign Policy Council

“What You Need to Know About Israel’s Judicial Reforms.” American Jewish Committee, 2023, What You Need To Know About Israel’s Judicial Reforms | AJC