"Blitz" from the right, "determination" from the left: who is really afraid of the Knesset's sovereignty

Legislation and changing governance procedures are the essence of the democratic mandate that the public grants to its elected officials. The attempt to portray the activity of the 25th Knesset as a violent anomaly or a deviation is nothing but a political manipulation intended to tie the hands of the majority. The declared role of an elected government is to lead reforms, and the role of a sovereign Knesset is to legislate them. The current struggle is not over the "quality of legislation," but over the very right of the national camp to implement its policy.

The parliamentary history of the State of Israel proves that many Knessets initiated unprecedented structural reforms, sometimes at lightning speeds intended to exploit political windows of opportunity. When the second Rabin government led the Oslo Accords in the 13th Knesset, or when the Sharon government led the Disengagement Plan Implementation Law in the 16th Knesset, the systems moved at maximum speed. For those of us who have forgotten, the law for the implementation of the Oslo Accords passed in the Knesset within five months, and the law for the implementation of the Disengagement Plan passed in the Knesset within three and a half months. These fateful moves changed the country's borders, evacuated settlements, and overturned security and political orders by a single vote, without broad consensus and while ignoring widespread public protest. In those days, the legal and media establishment did not call the pace of legislation "predatory," but celebrated the "governing determination."

Quantitatively and procedurally, the 25th Knesset is no different. It acted in accordance with the Knesset rules, through statutory committees, while holding dozens of open discussions, hearing experts, and voting according to the law. Thus, for example, the legislative process of the law dealing with the powers of the Attorney General, which passed in the final days of the Knesset, was legislated over a period of eight and a half months from the preliminary reading to the third reading.

The judicial reform and governance moves led by the coalition were intended to restore the balance between the branches of government, which had been unilaterally disrupted since the constitutional revolution of Judge Aharon Barak in the 90s. This constitutional revolution was passed in the 12th Knesset in the dead of night, by a slim majority and without the public being aware of the depth of the change imposed upon it.

In every major reform - in the field of dairy, imports, communications, credit, or the judicial system - there will always be power groups that feel that "their cheese has been moved." For comparison, the Bennett government legislated within three months, through the Arrangements Law, the increase in the retirement age for women, which was controversial. Those who have become accustomed to running the country through the corridors of the Supreme Court and appointed officials, without being accountable to the voter, react with natural anxiety when power returns to the people's representatives. The opposition stems from the desire to preserve the old centers of influence, not from anxiety for the parliamentary process.

Substantive democracy is tested by the ability of the majority to carry out the policy for which it was elected. A Knesset that limits the pace of its work due to threats or pressure from a vocal minority is one that fails its role. The 25th Knesset did not break the rules of the game; it simply refused to play by the unilateral rules dictated to it by the opposition and its spokespeople in the media and academia. The time has come to stop the hypocrisy, to recognize the sovereignty of the Knesset, and to remember that determined legislation is not a flaw in the system - it is democracy in action.