Search

ABSTRACT This paper examines the resilience building and public crisis management led by the “Building an Alternative” feminine NGO in Israel during the 2023 mass demonstrations against the judicial overhaul. The proposed judicial overhaul was perceived as a threat to both democratic foundations and women's rights in Israel. Raising awareness of women's rights through the “Women in Red” (WIR) protest using the “Handmaid's Tale” Parades was instrumental in restraining the planned reform's potential negative outcomes. The study discusses the importance of identifying a potential threat and using a crisis management approach through public performances to address it. We investigated the nature of the protest activity to assess its effectiveness, from the public perspective, in building resilience and raising awareness of women's rights issues. These issues were examined by an online questionnaire (N = 185) addressing attitudes regarding the protest. The results of the study show an increased awareness and engagement with women's rights issues, which was attributed to WIR protest efforts. The use of prominent visuals in the WIR protest led by the organization directly contributed to its ability to build resilience for women's rights and to enhance understanding of the potential threats of judicial overhaul among the Israeli public. This study emphasizes propaganda's role in women's protests as a significant tool for building resilience. It also stretches the boundaries of crisis management models by revealing an integration of pre‐crisis and response phases in the “Women in Red” protest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On December 21st, the mandates of three judges of the Italian Constitutional Court will expire, creating a total of 4 vacancies. While Parliament is responsible for filling the seats, political parties are far from reaching an agreement on who should get appointed. The majority’s strategic obstruction of the appointment process in combination with Meloni’s assertions that it is up to her political majority to “deal the cards” for these elections raise the specter of the Court’s politicization. While the Italian legal system has several safeguards to preserve the impartiality and effectiveness of its Constitutional Court, these do not immunizes it against practices that could slowly and almost imperceptibly undermine its independence.

This article analyzes the effects of Israel’s democratic backsliding on the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. While research on democratic backsliding focuses on the erosion of liberal democratic features and how this influences democracies’ citizenry, Israel’s composite regime offers a unique setting: an established (albeit weakened) liberal democracy ‘within the Green Line’ alongside an established occupation devoid of democratic features ‘beyond the Green Line.’ Exploring this, I analyze how Israel’s belligerent occupation has at times been restrained by the ‘democratic side’ of the country, resulting in Palestinians indirectly benefiting from Israel’s democracy while not having democratic rights themselves. The article thus demonstrates how Palestinians may be among the first populations to suffer from democratic backsliding while themselves being devoid of democratic rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the implications of the proposals of the Minister of Justice and the Chair of the Knesset’s Constitution Committee to overhaul the judiciary of Israel. These proposals, if legislated, will undermine basic principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. In the absence of a complete formal constitution and its relatively weak system of checks and balances, Israel has developed several institutions that protect the rule of law and human rights, including a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review of legislation; a balanced and professional system for selecting judges; a strong legal civil service, with a relatively independent attorney general. The so-called legal reforms deal specifically with these institutions, and seek to weaken or annul them. As such, this judicial overhaul is tantamount to a revolutionary attempt to change the regime and would undermine the democratic character of Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The proposal introduced in January 2023 for a ‘judicial overhaul’ in Israel has been characterized as a seismic event. Labeled a ‘reform’ by supporters and a ‘coup’ by skeptics, the proposal is better understood as part of a long process rather than a sudden event. This process involves gradual but persistent executive aggrandizement advanced by weakening multiple institutions of horizontal accountability and the media, alongside the imposition of restrictions on oppositional organizational capacity. Accordingly, the process should be defined in terms of autocratization. The spokes analogy is invoked to highlight the interconnectedness between the various realms that collectively underpin the regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Israeli democracy regulates the operation of the judiciary through the constraints of formal rules that check the political actors, the individual judges, and the judiciary. Basic laws, laws and regulations prescribe the operation of every subject. Yet beyond these formal rules, informal institutions and practices are sometimes equally important in the operation of the judiciary, as they are in any constitutional system. In Israel, some of these informal institutions are crucial for the flourishing of democracy and the rule of law, through their protection of judicial independence from external political interference. The imminent possibility that political actors may set some of them aside is nothing less than a potential transformation in the constitutional order. Over the past few decades, judges and court administrators have introduced other internal informal institutions in the administration of the Israeli Judiciary, which qualify formal judicial accountability mechanisms in ways that may prove to be detrimental to democratic principles. This article discusses informal institutions that are important in the operation of the Israeli judiciary, separating the former external kind that are conducive to the rule of law—such as the illegitimacy of political and partisan considerations in judicial appointments—and whose disregard may signal democratic decay from the latter internal kind that may prove detrimental to the courts—such as opaquely changing who is responsible for court administration. Lastly, the political attempt to change informal institutions, detailed herein, can be seen as a harbinger of the current attempt to change formal institutions in the constitutional status of the judiciary in Israel.

The Israeli democracy regulates the operation of the judiciary through the constraints of formal rules that check the political actors, the individual judges, and the judiciary. Basic laws, laws and regulations prescribe the operation of every subject. Yet beyond these formal rules, informal institutions and practices are sometimes equally important in the operation of the judiciary, as they are in any constitutional system. In Israel, some of these informal institutions are crucial for the flourishing of democracy and the rule of law, through their protection of judicial independence from external political interference. The imminent possibility that political actors may set some of them aside is nothing less than a potential transformation in the constitutional order. Over the past few decades, judges and court administrators have introduced other internal informal institutions in the administration of the Israeli Judiciary, which qualify formal judicial accountability mechanisms in ways that may prove to be detrimental to democratic principles. This article discusses informal institutions that are important in the operation of the Israeli judiciary, separating the former external kind that are conducive to the rule of law--such as the illegitimacy of political and partisan considerations in judicial appointments--and whose disregard may signal democratic decay from the latter internal kind that may prove detrimental to the courts--such as opaquely changing who is responsible for court administration. Lastly, the political attempt to change informal institutions, detailed herein, can be seen as a harbinger of the current attempt to change formal institutions in the constitutional status of the judiciary in Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the comparative constitutional field relating to backsliding democracies, it is difficult to find an example of a single constitutional event that undermines the basic principles of democracy. Democracies die in a slow and gradual process. Each of the laws passed is not in itself fatal for democracy but when the measures are examined together, cumulatively, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is the big picture, the whole series of legal moves, that brings about a fundamental change in the state's regime until it is no longer a liberal democracy. In these situations of gradual erosion there is no single law that can reveal the magnitude of the change inherent in it. To understand the risk, it is therefore necessary to refer to its overall institutional context. The proposed reform in Israel may result in serious harm to the principle of separation of powers. Moreover, given the importance of imposing limits on governmental power as a tool for protecting human rights and the 'rules of the game' in democratic regimes, the reform would seriously harm the protection afforded to these rights and principles, and constitute a clear and present danger to Israel's liberal democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last year Israel has been going through its most severe constitutional crisis in its history. The newly elected right-wing government has initiated a judicial overhaul that would limit the authority of the judiciary and grant the executive almost absolute powers. In response, the country has witnessed unprecedented civil protestations and opposition from nearly all segments of civil society, academia and economic sectors. In this article we argue that the judicial overhaul must be analysed as a populist constitutional project. We also explain that compared with other systems, Israeli democracy is especially vulnerable to populism, because of its unique institutional design factors coupled with social factors. Only with understanding these factors can one grasp the risks that the judicial overhaul poses to Israeli democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central element in the Israeli government's agenda to overhaul the judiciary, unveiled in January 2023, is its proposal to give it and its parliamentary coalition control over the selection and promotion of judges. This article shows that this proposal is an attempt to capture the courts. To illustrate this, the article looks at the government's proposal through three different perspectives: first, the perspective of the rationale of the current system of judicial selection, against the background of court governance in Israel and its constitutional system; second, the perspective of changes in Israel's judicial selection system over the past two decades; third, the comparative perspective of trends in judicial selection in other democracies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report delves into the current socio-political landscape in Israel, shedding light on the growing opposition to government reforms and heightened tensions during the formation of the new government. It explores the temporary pause in internal debates following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, with an expectation that these discussions will resume post-conflict. The primary focus is on depicting Israeli society and politics before the war and analysing the key elements that have defined its recent history.

The war in Gaza serves, this blog post argues, as the final nail in the coffin of Netanyahu's judicial overhaul. The Israeli political climate, relentless opposition and the political fallout after Hamas' surprise attack on Israel and the current war thwarted the judicial overhaul. However, populism is far from overcome. Therefore, the current failed judicial overhaul remains a warning sign for the democracy-seeking public in Israel and should raise demand for constitutional entrenchment of the democratic values of the Israeli state. As the judicial overhaul of 2023 has shown us – democracy is not safe if it hangs by the thread of a simple majority in parliament.

Six months after the outbreak of the severe socio-political crisis in Israel, a group of experts and researchers from a variety of fields met at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) to discuss the root causes of the crisis, its characteristics, and likely ramifications from a forward-looking, system-wide perspective, with special emphasis on ramifications for national security. Naturally, the questions addressed have no absolute or unequivocal answers, and analysis of the crisis draws from the various interpretations of the respective observers. One important element regarding the roots of the crisis is the very different--and at times polarized--way in which reality is perceived, which necessarily dictates profound disagreements over the significance of what unfolds. This article seeks to paint a picture that reflects both differences of opinion and points of agreement vis-à-vis the means and conditions that might allow Israel to extricate itself, at some point, from the current severe crisis and return to normal functioning. A key springboard here is broad discussion, which may enable identification of common denominators that still exist among the Israeli public and within the country's political and social sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]