How to achieve regime change

Let us start with the points of agreement: the dispute between us is between partners in opinion. Like Gil Bringer, who wrote in the latest 'Musaf LeShabbat' about the 'conservative march of folly,' I also believe that a proper system of government should be based on the principles of liberal democracy practiced in the West. Like him, I believe that the State of Israel has been far from this principle for many years and separated from it completely at the beginning of 2024.

We are now the only country in the world claiming to be a liberal democracy where an unelected body can invalidate the highest legal documents without relying on a pre-known text written by someone other than the judge themselves. Despite this exceptional authority, judges are selected without clear control by the political system, unlike customary practice elsewhere. The Attorney General is granted the authority to bind the government plenum with their directives—a practice contrary to all other democratic countries.

Bringer and I would have been happy if our state's system of government were similar to that in the United States (with a constitution and two legislative houses), Britain (two houses, without a constitution or the ability of a court to strike down laws), France, Germany, or any other format recognized as democratic. The disagreement between us lies in the choice of strategy for driving change. We both agree that the strategy taken is disappointing in its results. It is difficult to assess in retrospect whether the failure could have been avoided. Perhaps the solutions proposed by the government were too radical, creating a reverse democratic deficit instead of a balanced regime. Perhaps the attempt at change was ahead of its time, and the combined forces of wealthy elites, holding both wallets and swords, were enough to defeat a narrow popular majority that supported change.

However, Bringer offers a different diagnosis: according to him, the government failed because it did not act wisely and 'creatively.' A smart strategy should have stemmed from the recognition that legislative changes cannot produce structural reforms in the face of what he calls the 'march of arrogance of the Supreme Court,' which can invalidate any amendment with a stroke of a pen. Therefore, he argues, the right way is to create gradual change within the Supreme Court itself through appointments that ensure a 'conservative' majority.

The goal of a structural reform is the restoration of democratic balances, not a hidden takeover of power centers. Anyone who shares our view of the Supreme Court should demand a change in the definition of its powers, not add people to its ranks to buy the authority they oppose. What Bringer calls 'creativity' is insincerity. The judges themselves will certainly notice the attempt to 'capture the queen from within' and will oppose it; there is more than a hint of unfairness in such a strategy.

One must admit honestly that the goal was not achieved and has, for the time being, even moved away from us. We must continue to openly advocate for the democratic viewpoint and believe that common sense and proper values will find a home in people's hearts.

Prof. Ron Shapira is the Rector of the Peres Academic Center.