Publications

Various measures taken under the current government are perceived by part of the public as threatening the robustness of Israeli democracy. These include the Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People; the Judea and Samaria Settlement Regularization Law; the so-called “Loyalty in Culture” bill; the bill on the override clause; and attacks on the Supreme Court and human rights organizations. On the other hand, some argue that Israeli democracy is stronger than ever, and that those mourning the state of Israeli democracy do so because the people in power do not share their views. With each side convinced that it is right, the question arises whether Israeli democracy is truly at risk. This article maps the opposing arguments regarding many of the said government measures and analyzes the ramifications for Israeli democracy. It also proposes guidelines for maintaining a healthy democracy, particularly in the face of these challenges.

Some of the divergent views brought below result from different definitions of a “democratic state.” Israel has a democratic regime: the government is elected in free elections, and the results are determined at the ballot box with no external intervention. Many cite this as sufficient proof that Israel is democratic. It is also asserted that the attempt to restrict majority rule in the name of “democratic values” is actually anti-democratic, because it ignores the elections results and imposes specific outlooks that are nothing other than the political views of the liberal left. These views conflict with the majority view, which leans to the right and attaches importance to enhancement of the national identity of the state. Labeling any position seeking to promote national interests as essentially anti-democratic is a misrepresentation of democracy. The attitude that regards majority rule as the fulfillment of the democratic idea, however, is misguided; it ignores essential elements in the definition of a democratic state. The focus of the debate, therefore, concerns the question of what those essential elements are, and what degree of protection they require.

The discussion below refers to four spheres in which controversial measures have been taken. The first concerns the scope of protection accorded to human rights and minority rights, and the implementation of the principle of equality. Directly related are the implications of Israeli policy in the West Bank for Israeli democracy.1 The third sphere concerns the attitude toward opposition groups, and the extent of freedom of speech and the possibility of criticizing the government freely. The fourth sphere concerns the existence of checks and balances, the rule of law, and effective gatekeepers. Following an examination of the four spheres, the effect of the global trend toward erosion of democratic values will be discussed briefly, and insights and conclusions presented.