Israel’s Crisis of Legitimacy
By Yarden Morad
One of the key ingredients for the stability and success of any country/regime is legitimacy from the public. It is an action that is not only pronounced by voting, but also silently, in daily actions, such as paying taxes or observing the laws. We are witnessing the significance of this concept first hand in contemporary Israel.
Since the government has launched its plan for overhauling the judicial system, in the eyes of many influential people, it has broken an unwritten contract. As a result, they say they do not have to abide by traditional norms.
A key example would be the military, which is often called “the army of the people”(צבא העם), as a result of the mandatory conscription law that is still in place. Recently, over 10,000 reservists have said they would not volunteer for their service as a consequence of part of the reform that was passed late July. This has brought significant turmoil in the army for two main reasons. The first reason is practical, the Israeli Air Force is highly dependent upon reservists for its operations, unlike many other branches. The second reason is moral and character driven. As mentioned, the army is one of the last symbols of consensus in Israeli society. In recent years, there has been an assault on the character of crucial institutions by government figures. These include the police, state prosecution, and the courts. The army was an anomaly in that respect — being attacked much less often and not categorically. In recent months however, there has been a targeted assault on the character of military leaders by the rising right wing media, most importantly Channel 14. The main point of attack was the army’s perceived “weakness” in dealing with the reservists unwilling to volunteer (which is legal). The attack resulted in a crisis the army has never seen before, a politicization of its decision making process. A famous video depicted a battle scene, in which Air Force pilots ask ground troops (which are perceived as right-leaning) whether they support the judicial reform or not, when deciding to help them. The video was shared by government ministers and drew an unprecedented direct criticism from the army spokesman.
This all leads to great fear of whether the Israeli army can fight successfully in a potential upcoming war on multiple fronts (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, terror attacks from the West Bank, violence from Arab Israelis). When there is no shared belief in the mission and the cause, how can the army succeed? A key ingredient here is that the reform has opened the greatest conflicts of Israeli society wide open. People’s identity is at stake, “what kind of country Israel would like to be?” is the question leading the debate on the judicial coup/revolution/reform. Even the names are different, resulting from political affiliation. The move the government is proposing could lead Israel into a significantly more religious and nationalistic form, by removing the barriers from a government which is anchored by these values. On the other hand, Israel can move in a different direction if there is no legislation, most importantly being pronounced by a more secular and open society, and also a less nationalistic one. The stakes are so high because the judicial system, and most importantly the judicial advisors and the supreme court, serves as the only check on government power. Israel does not have a constitution, and basic civil rights are not necessarily protected in the case of the legislation passing, because many of which are protected by court rulings.
In other words, the question is this, does Israel go in the direction of a democracy that is majoritarian only, in which the rule of the majority can dictate any aspect of the country, from who can participate in elections to who can marry, or in the direction of liberal democracy, where there are significant checks on a purely majoritarian rule. A similar majoritarian rhetoric is being spewed currently by leaders in Hungary and Poland, which are regarded by political scientists as countries going through a process of democratic backsliding.
Back to the government’s declining legitimacy, the process is being driven by the stakes described above. Many leaders and influential characters do not want to live in, serve, volunteer, or contribute to a country they longer recognize, one whose character is gone. Nadav Argaman, former head of the Shin Bet, said this to Channel 12’s “Fact”:”Today I serve the kingdom, not the king. Tomorrow morning I am serving the king and not the kingdom. Many will not agree to serve the king and the kingdom will not be relevant”. This leads many to take unprecedented actions, such as not volunteering, considering leaving the country, going on strike, and blocking roads. These are actions that are committed by people who have almost nothing to lose, as a last resort, and as a result of great patriotism. They also reflect a deep crisis between the government and some of its people, which, if not being repaired, will lead Israel to being a failed nation. No regime can survive without a certain amount of legitimacy.
When the Soviet Union fell in the late 1980s/early 1990s, many countries in Eastern Europe saw the meaning of this fact. In Romania, the ruling dictator Ceaușescu was suddenly killed after being in power for decades (a fact which some extreme protesters are mentioning today, in the context of Netanyahu). In East Germany, the Berlin Wall fell and the country was united again. In short, civil disobedience can lead to great changes in a short period of time. A great contemporary example is the night when Netanyahu fired defense minister Gallant. That night, tens of thousands spontaneously blocked the Ayalon highway, and caused a shock to government officials that led them to pause the legislation. In other words, protesting Israelis already understand the power of civil disobedience, coupled with coordination and a shared purpose of a democratic future.
In the coming weeks and months, Israel will experience an important test of its democratic norms and culture. The Supreme court will rule on the legality of the reform’s first part. A consequential question remains: will the government abide by the Supreme Court ruling or defy it? As the prime minister and other leading figures are not, in the words of CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, giving a “satisfying answer.” A defiance can be in the form of bringing Shas leader Aryeh Deri back to the cabinet or making outrageous appointments to government posts, without considering the court’s opinion. In that scenario, the government will disregard the court and its legitimacy to rule on matters related to the reasonability clause legislation (the first part of the judicial reform).
Now, this can set a precedent for a future in which military/defense officials will face a dilemma of who to abide by, the court or the government? This scenario is called the “constitutional crisis”, a reality in which 2 branches of government claim authority on a matter. Channel 12’s “Fact” has a quote of David Barnea, the Mossad chief, saying that in such a case, he will be on the “right side”, which was interpreted as abiding by the court’s ruling. Yediot’s Nadav Eyal has published that 3 of the 4 major defense/security organizations (IDF, Shin Bet, Mossad) are expected to stick to the court in the case of such conflict, with the police being the exception — indicating that the court’s legitimacy is superior to the government’s in the eyes of most leaders of these organizations. There are also initiatives by leading figures, such as the president of Tel Aviv University and major law firms, to start striking if and when the government defies the court.
To conclude, the government will do best by stopping the reform immediately. No country can function without its people. If they care about the only Jewish state’s future, they must put their plans aside for the greater good. Some have already started realizing this reality, but some apparently are having difficulty seeing the obvious.
