by Dr. Martin Sherman
Hat tip: Dr. Carolyn Tal
If the so-called "champions of democracy" succeed in obstructing the judicial reforms, democratic rule will be replaced by mob rule—and Israel will be teetering on the brink of an Orwellian dystopia
The starkest indicators [of erosion of democracy] which
presumably underlie the country’s downgrading in international democracy
ratings, involve elite decisions about rejecting election results - James N. Druckman, Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, Misperceptions, Competition, and Support for Democracy, p. 24, Dec 2022.
If
the copiously funded mob succeeds in compelling the Israeli government
to back away from its much-needed policy of reigning in the rampant
legal establishment in general, and the unbridled judiciary, in
particular, it will be the end of an era in Israel.
Blatantly absurd
For
if they succeed, democratic rule will have been replaced by mob rule,
in which a highly motivated and abundantly financed minority can impose
its will on the elected majority and compel it to abandon a policy,
which in the elections, it pledged to implement. In this regard, the
accumulating signs of the government buckling under the relentless
pressure of the increasingly raucous and unruly street demonstrations
are profoundly perturbing.
There are at least two
remarkable aspects of the ongoing protests. One is just how manifestly
ludicrous their professed motivation is; the other is how astonishingly
effective their well-oiled, well-executed, and well-funded promotional
campaign has been in hoodwinking well-off, well-educated echelons in
Israeli society.
As for the alleged motivation—defense of
democracy from descent into dictatorship—the demonstrators have yet to
present a persuasive causal chain linking the proposed changes in the
judicial system to the demise of democracy in Israel. Indeed, it is
highly unlikely that they—or anyone else—could.
After all,
it is plainly absurd to claim that a system, in which a dozen or so
unelected officials, with no accountability to the public, have the
ultimate authority on matters of vital importance, is more democratic
than one, in which that authority is vested in the hands of 61 (or more)
elected parliamentarians, regularly answerable to the public.
"Democracy is Dictatorship": Descent into dystopia?
So,
are the opponents of judicial reforms claiming that, if the reforms are
implemented, Israel will metamorphize into a "dictatorial democracy"…or
is that "democratic dictatorship"? Indeed, the allegation is no less
oxymoronic than "tolerant tyranny" or "treacherously trustworthy".
Disturbingly,
the opposition's calculated abuse of language is strongly reminiscent
of the abuse of language chillingly depicted in Orwell's dystopian
novel, Nineteen-Eighty-Four. In it, "Big Brother, the totalitarian regime, imposed the use of a contrived language, NewSpeak,
"designed to diminish the range of thought". Typical of the elements
employed in NewSpeak is the juxtaposition of diametric opposites as in
the official motto of the totalitarian regime: War is Peace. Freedom is
Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
In perturbingly similar
vein, the promoters of the anti-reform protests are in effect asserting
that "democracy is dictatorship", when decisions are shifted to
accountable democratically elected forums from unaccountable, unelected
ones.
Thus, although the opponents of the judicial reforms
are in the Opposition, their modus operandi is imposing a dystopian aura
on the dispute over those reforms, in which truth is cast to the
wind—precluding any chance of sincere dialogue to reduce acrimony and
reach some consensual resolution.
Brazen, blatant hypocrisy
Of
course, the claim that the implementation of the proposed judicial
reforms will imperil Israeli democracy is clearly the pinnacle of
hypocrisy. After all, those who today vociferously oppose the reforms,
previously endorsed precisely the same measures.
Arguably,
the most brazen, blatant display of barefaced double standards behind
the anti-reform demonstrators is that of Opposition leader, Yair Lapid.
On February 27, 2023, during a plenary debate on judicial reform, Lapid
railed: “Stop this insane legislation.”
However, in a 2016 address to Kohelet Policy Forum, the organization that played a pivotal role in the formulation of the proposed judicial reforms, Lapid laid out
his views on the legal system, which mirrored almost identical measures
to those in reforms put forward by today's coalition: “I have opposed,
and I still oppose, judicial activism of the sort introduced by [former
Supreme Court President] Justice Aharon Barak. I don’t think it is right
that everything is justiciable. I don’t think it is right for the
Supreme Court to change fundamental things in accordance with what it
refers to as the judgment of ‘the reasonable person.’ That’s an
amorphous and completely subjective definition that the Knesset never
introduced to the legal code. It’s not right in my mind that the
separation of powers, the sacrosanct foundation of the democratic
method, should be breached by one branch of government placing itself
above the others.”
No accommodation possible
From
the foregoing analysis, one thing should be depressingly clear: There
can be no consensual resolution to the ongoing clash—because the clash
itself is not only contrived, but is, in fact, the objective of the
demonstrators—rather than a means to achieve an end.
Paradoxically,
there can be no consensual resolution to the dispute because there is
no real substantive difference on the issues in dispute—as evidenced by
the prior support for the reforms by those who now oppose it—see for
example here, here, here, here
and again here.
This
absence of real substantive differences is underscored by the fact
that, although opponents of the reform almost uniformly concede that the
judicial system does need some form of overhaul, they assiduously
refrain from stipulating what measures they have in mind—thus averting
any chance of comparing what the differences are between their proposals
and that of the current coalition.
Democratic rule replaced by mob rule
It
should thus be clear that the ongoing dispute, allegedly about a
substantive difference of opinion is nothing but a façade, a stage prop
in a visceral fight for control of the reins of power, in which there is
no place for any rational debate. Nothing will be acceptable other than
abject surrender. (For greater detail on this, see my recent article here)
This
is why the government must not, and cannot, back away from the reform
proposal. For if does, there will be no point in any elections in the
future. Indeed, every time the elected government decides on something
of which the opposition disapproves, they will take to the street until
it yields to opposition demands—and democratic rule will have been
replaced by mob rule.
Dr. Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He is the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project.
Source:https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/369174
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
