*Majorities of Netanyahu
*Requires a Constitution
It is very probable that what is happening in Israel, as a result of the controversial reform to the Supreme Court of Justice, is due to the absence of a Constitution. Although, at the time of its foundation, they did not want to resort to this type of instrument to give a harmonious structure to the country, now it seems pertinent to think of an alternative of this type. Because democracy in that nation is undoubtedly a substantial element of the Middle East, otherwise the basis of the Western alliance. And in the future it would be disastrous to allow the perverse idea to prosper that there does not exist a democratic system at all.
It is well known that it was not possible to achieve a Constitution, in its beginnings, because there were openly dissenting voices between adopting a liberal system or one supported by theological dogmas. But right now that’s not the debate. Indeed, having consolidated the country as an unalterable fact on the world map in the last 75 years, it can also be taken for granted that in none of the main political sectors of the right or left today there is room, at all, for the idea of a fundamentalist government. .
Of course, there have been decades of great difficulties, especially due to the wars in the area and the consequences that still prevail over the territory and the destiny of Israel, including the status of Jerusalem. But, even so, it is also clear that, at this point, the nation enjoys more than enough consolidation to put aside that kind of permanent state of emergency that implies, for example, not maintaining constitutional bases on which the decisions are adopted. rules and the action of the branches of public power. Of course, Israel has some fundamental laws that could be called statutory or organic, in Colombian terms, however, they do not seem comprehensive of what is usually called the contract or social pact. They are regulations that have clear constitutional claims, but omit the fact that they derive from a single source of power and a pre-established implicit agreement among all citizens for greater legitimacy.
It is repeatedly said that this is the same institutional path taken by the United Kingdom. The difference is that, initially, Israel favored a Constitution, a task that had to be left for later in view, as has been said, of the opposition to regulating the legal development of the nation on anything other than religious statutes. Therefore, it has been the Congress (and not, for example, a Constituent Assembly) that through the decades has been issuing the dozen fundamental laws of Israel, depending on the needs and the changing parliamentary majorities, for its part, without resorting to the instruments of participatory democracy or some referendum action that gives way to popular sovereignty.
Precisely, the regulation that has been under discussion in recent weeks, causing unprecedented polarization and social protests in Israel, has been the Fundamental Law of the Judicial System. It is in it, likewise, where the independence and appointment of the Supreme Court of Justice is established, among many other aspects. For this purpose, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the political block it represents, expanded with more radical sectors, modified the corresponding legal structure, as a result of considering some of its opinions excessively liberalizing, biased and contrary to the essence of the Jewish people (with special impact in Tel Aviv). Therefore, Congress adopted a system that was described as “more reasonable” and that must now be reviewed “constitutionally” by the Court itself, in September.
The Court would therefore have to find some formal defect or rule on the substance, since the modifications were made under the precepts of law and the required parliamentary majorities. And it will not be easy, of course, for the same body of constitutional control to accept the restrictions adopted in terms of the orbit of its action or possibly to be divided vociferously in the face of the real question that underlies what are the social and cultural boundaries of the Israeli society and its historical development.
At the time, Netanyahu resorted to a concertation that finally collapsed, largely thanks to the fact that leftist and identity tendencies chose to settle in a kind of insurmountable cultural battle. The country was deeply divided. For its part, the Court acts as judge and party. And now Israel may find itself facing an unprecedented institutional clash. Since there is no single state structure, with its division by branches of public power, as well as a catalog of duties and rights, the outlook is difficult to predict. A Constitution is needed which, as they say in Colombia in accordance with the Bobbio doctrine, is the peace treaty that governs all the inhabitants.