After thirteen weeks of protests, a general strike that paralyzed the country, also preventing arrivals and departures from the airport, after frantic and convulsive majority meetings, the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu it blocked justice reform. A decision that was in the air, cost ‘Bibi’ a very intense mediation work with far-right allies who had threatened to leave the government, but held their positions in the coalition in exchange for some concessions.
Now we look ahead. The reform of the judiciary will take place in any case, government sources say, it is necessary to rewrite the rules of relations between the two organs of the state. We’ll do it later, meanwhile we’re looking for one side with the opposition, at least with those who are in favor of a justice reform, but who have not shared the form, the presenters and, in part, the substance of the changes desired by Netanyahu and his cronies. Already on Tuesday, the day after the great blockade of the country, representatives of the majority and the opposition met with President Herzog to define the rules of engagement. Reform needed, it was said, but why?
Protests and the role of the Supreme Court
The justice reform that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government intends to carry forward and which has sparked fierce street protests with demonstrations that have lasted for thirteen weeks, mainly concerns the institution of Supreme Court. This is the only counterbalance to the power of the executive and parliament, since not even the Israeli president has the power to block or roll back laws. Israel does not have a constitution but 13 basic laws.
At present the Israeli Supreme Court can nullify any law decided by the government with a simple majority, either based on the basic laws, in the absence of support on these, based on a principle of “reasonableness”. The Court, which is based in Jerusalem, is made up of 15 judges appointed by a commission of 9 members: 3 by the Court itself, 2 lawyers, 4 politicians chosen by the government (2 ministers, 2 parliamentarians). This, according to the current government, would lead to an excessive imbalance in favor of the judiciary over the political one. Netanyahu’s goal is to bring the members of the Committee to 11 (instead of 9 today) ensuring the prevalence of politically appointed members over technicians.
Another intention of the reform desired by the premier would be to eliminate the power of the Supreme Court to abolish laws approved by parliament: the Court could decide to block them, but parliament, with a simple majority of 61 members out of 120, could overturn the decision of the Court . According to opponents, this would give too much power to the government and would represent a threat to democracy in Israel. It is also requested to eliminate the “reasonableness clause”, leaving the Supreme Court with the task of examining exclusively whether or not a law complies with the principles expressed by the Fundamental Laws.
The reform also provides that the decisions of the Court regarding the invalidity of a law, even a fundamental law, are taken with a majority of at least 80%, and no simpler. Another point of discord concerns the duties of the ministries’ legal advisers, who would no longer be independent under the control of the Ministry of Justice, but chosen with political criteria and whose opinions are binding.
The reasons of the prime minister
I Netanyahu supporters they point out thehypocrisy of the protesters who oppose the reform: it is opposed to the simple majority of elected parliamentarians being able to overturn the decisions of the Court, but today the same still decides by simple majority. And the principle of reasonableness just doesn’t go down. “We are not second-class citizens”, “you are distorting the electoral result”, “the country cannot be held hostage by anarchists”, the slogan most used by supporters of Bibi and his, who took to the streets in support of the government. Many believe that the reform is necessary, also because the country has on the one hand an elected body, the parliament, and on the other hand one who is appointed from within a small and restricted group of people who can decide the fate of anything and anyone, even if only on a principle of “reasonableness”.
Several analysts point out that if it had been presented in different ways and at different times and perhaps not by Netanyahu and his extremist government but by a more moderate one, the reform would have had a different reception.
Now Netanyahu has the ball in hand to change the country. The reform that is beginning to be discussed should strengthen the fundamental laws and the powers of the two bodies. Someone puts forward the hypothesis that we can even think of a real and proper constitution. What is certain is that the longest-serving prime minister in the country’s history came out with broken bones but not downsized. He will have to work hard to keep the most extremist associates at bay. It is not excluded that he is working on a coalition change. Otherwise, it will return to the polls. Six elections in five years show the need not only for judicial reform, but also for electoral reform.
Copertina EPA/ABIR SULTAN’s photo