The discourse around the joint list and the Corona somehow shifted under the radar the fact that the incoming Knesset is about to change the constitutional regime of the State of Israel in the coming days.

The bill to limit the term of office of a two-term prime minister and the bill to oust an elected majority prime minister, who is usually indicted, could severely sabotage Israeli democracy.

I note "probably" because there has never been a serious academic or public debate on these bills, as requested during a constitutional change, which further reinforces the impression that this is a hijacking. These laws affect the brakes and the balance that is the basis of the democratic system.

At this point it is important to put aside the argument that the main feature of the democratic system is the rule of law and the supremacy of the court. The rule of law also exists in Iran, where there is no dispute about the validity of Sharia law and their superiority over mortals. Court supremacy is a foreign expression that we have unjustly normalized; The correct term is court independence.

The uniqueness of the democratic system lies in the ability of the three authorities to curb and balance each other, thus maintaining its stability. Just as the court can narrowly interpret the law, so can the legislature overcome legislative legislation.

The law limiting the presidency to two terms seems appropriate, especially given the American experience. However, the United States is a presidential democracy, and the president himself is the executive, while Israel is a parliamentary democracy and the prime minister is the executive, reflecting the array of powers in the legislature.

Limiting the presidency of a prime minister will have a direct impact on the power of the legislature. For example, the government and political party have a different life cycle. The law would force the ruling party to replace its head every eight years, create instability and inevitably weaken its power, hence the power of the legislature.

Within the framework of brakes and balances, the judiciary grew stronger at the expense of the legislature. There are several reasons for this, too, related to the structural weakening of the latter, such as the transition from a mass party to a skeletal party and the decline in the mobilizing power of political ideology.

Since the 1970s, the braking and balancing system has been eroding, and the proposed law will only add to that. The only question is why would the way the Israeli legislature hurt the separation of powers and the balances and brakes between them, which is the soul of democracy?

It is the role of the legislator to maintain the democratic fabric and the separation of powers and balance between them, and not the purity of dimensions. The purity of dimensions will be maintained through a balanced and effective democratic system, with a definite but not infinite status, to the enforcement and judicial authorities. So what is the reason?

The explanation for the hasty legislation is worrying: the parliamentarians who wanted to submit these bills do not perceive themselves as legislators acting out of parliamentary responsibility. Is it out of misunderstanding? malice?

To each and every one of his and her interpretation. But the fact that the newly-sworn MPs, hovering over the declaration of a national emergency, filed a bill that would consolidate all governmental powers by the judiciary - this is worrying.

Dr. Adi Portugaz is in charge of information infrastructure at Ben Gurion Institute, Ben Gurion University of the Negev