Democratic erosion in Israel did not take place overnight.
Israel’s leaders built upon democratic erosion through a deliberate strategy.
If the Israeli government conducted government reforms that preserved independent oversight and maintained checks on executive power, this argument would fall flat. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime weakened the institutions that would limit his executive authority. His government did so through legislation to reduce the power of Israel’s judiciary.
Nancy Bermeo calls this process executive aggrandizement. Specifically, elected leaders weaken checks on their power through legal measures that justify their actions (Bermeo, 2016).
Ozan Varol explained executive aggrandizement in a different sense. He argued that authoritarian leaders disguise anti-democratic reforms inside procedural tools. In other words, authoritarians use laws, courts, and procedures to erode democracy without abolishing it outright (Varol, 2015).
What is Israel’s Judicial Overhaul Crisis?
Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime fought for more power and to get the final say in the Israeli government.
The judicial overhaul crisis was so controversial because the Supreme Court in Israel has an extremely important job: to check the power of Israel’s legislature, the Knesset. Israel does not have a constitution. Instead, they have “Basic Laws” that define the government’s powers. Without the Supreme Court, the Knesset can pass laws that erode Israel’s democracy.
Protesters gather in Tel Aviv during demonstrations over judicial reform in 2023. (Photo Courtesy of Yoav Aziz via Unsplash).
In 2023, Netanyahu’s supporters in the Knesset moved to prevent Israel’s Supreme Court from using the “reasonableness standard,” which checks executive power. Supporters of abolishing the reasonable standard framed the move as a necessary measure to prevent judicial overreach. In reality, the reform would have stripped the judiciary of one of its primary powers: reviewing extreme executive decisions. When Israel’s Supreme Court struck down that law in January 2024, it warned that the elimination of the reasonable standard would substantially damage Israel’s democracy.
That ruling mattered, but it did not stop the broader campaign by Benjamin Netanyahu to erode Israel’s democracy.
In March 2025, the Knesset passed a law that changed the Judicial Selection Committee and gave the Knesset more control over judicial appointments. Critics warned that the law would weaken judicial independence. Supporters called it accountability. This framing revealed Netanyahu’s strategy. Wannabe authoritarians do not attack democracy through brute force. They mold their moves through legislative and judicial reforms that further centralize their authority.
Executive aggrandizement in Israel
Israel’s case should alarm democracies around the world. This is not the traditional pattern of authoritarianism.
Israel’s government did not dissolve its government by force. Netanyahu did not eliminate Israel’s Constitution. Netanyahu did not cancel past or future elections.
Instead, Netanyahu’s coalition used Israel’s institutions to reduce the checks on his power. That is exactly how executive aggrandizement works.
Nancy Bermeo argues that democratic backsliding tends to happen in steps. Democracies erode piece by piece, not all at once (Bermeo, 2016).
Israel’s case coincides with this pattern.
The Israeli government introduced each reform as a technicality. They claimed that each institutional change was a democratic improvement.
This process was very effective. It was also incredibly dangerous for Israel’s democracy.
What is Stealth Authoritarianism?
Netanyahu’s recent reforms are a classic example of what Ozan Varol calls “stealth authoritarianism.” Stealth authoritarianism hides anti-democratic goals inside legal mechanisms.
“Democratic” reforms look ordinary on the surface. However, they often help incumbents maintain power and weaken institutions that could remove them or check their power (Varol, 2015).
Israel’s institutions do not protect against the recent “democratic” reforms. Israel’s legal system cannot protect democracy on its own.
Democratic erosion in Israel is a referendum.
It is a referendum about whether the executive branch led by Benjamin Netanyahu can rewrite the rules of accountability in Israel.
In March 2025, Justice Minister Yariv Levin took steps against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, another official who checked Netanyahu’s power. Levin intended to remove Baharav-Miara from her post as Attorney General. He presented that move as lawful, and he targeted another institutional constraint on executive power. Luckily, Israel’s Supreme Court blocked the Attorney General’s firing.
However, the intention was clear. Netanyahu’s government wanted to install another loyalist to further centralize his power.
Are Supporters of the Judicial Overhaul Justified?
Supporters of the judicial overhaul had a legitimate case.
They argued that Israel’s Supreme Court had too much power. They argued that unelected judges should not shape government decision-making or political outcomes.
This argument is a serious debate.
Courts should be criticized when they make bad decisions. Democracies need to be accountable to their citizens. Nevertheless, this argument fails for a couple of reasons.
First, the key question is not whether judicial reform is legitimate. The key question is whether judicial reform increases the power of the executive branch. In Israel, the reforms give more power to Benjamin Netanyahu and his governing coalition in the Knesset.
Second, Israel’s institutional context matters. Reforms that are managed in a system with a strong constitution and checks on power for each branch of government become far more dangerous in Israel’s system of government. In Israel, the weakening of the judicial branch and making politically motivated appointments to major positions in government did not create balance.
It created a power imbalance that placed more power in the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu and the executive branch.
Why does this case in Israel matter?
Freedom House gave Israel a score of 73 out of 100 in its 2025 report, down from 74 in 2024. V-Dem reported that Israel lost its status as a liberal democracy in 2023. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) indicated that the 2025 judicial appointment changes would weaken judicial independence (Freedom House, 2025; V-Dem Institute, 2025; International IDEA, 2025).
The outlook for Israel’s democracy is bleak. Democracies need to take notice.
Democracies rarely die overnight.
Israel’s case reflects a deliberate campaign by Benjamin Netanyahu to strengthen executive power and make it harder to stop and easier to maintain.
Israel’s case matters because it represents how democratic erosion often occurs today: “Democratic” leaders try to gain power through their country’s existing legal institutions.
References
Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19.
Freedom House. (2025). Israel: Freedom in the World 2025.
International IDEA. (2025). Israel – March 2025 | The Global State of Democracy.
Shany, Y., & Cohen, A. (2025, August 20). Back into the abyss: Israel’s government fires attorney general, Supreme Court blocks the move. Israel Democracy Institute.
Reuters. (2023). Israel judicial overhaul: What is the new law and why is it causing upheaval?
Reuters. (2024). Israel’s Supreme Court strikes down disputed law that limited court oversight.
Varol, O. O. (2015). Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Review, 100(4), 1673–1742.
V-Dem Institute. (2025). Democracy Report 2025: 25 years of autocratization.
The point about stealth authoritarianism is spot on, because Netanyahu’s coalition has framed each move as a democratic fix when really they’ve been stripping the judiciary of the tools it needs to actually check executive power. What makes Israel’s situation especially precarious compared to others is that there’s no constitution to fall back on. Without the Supreme Court, the Knesset can basically pass whatever it wants. The fight over the “reasonableness standard” wasn’t a technicality, but existential. With over 380 anti-democratic bill proposals introduced by the coalition, it’s hard to read this as anything other than a deliberate, systematic effort.