The law clarifies how the Knesset chairman will be elected after an election. Until the basic law was amended: The Knesset in 2016, it was the MK's veteran who served as interim chairman until a new chairman was elected. In 2016, the law was amended, with a majority of 91 Knesset members and without opposition, and stipulated that the Speaker of the Knesset continue to hold office until the election of a new Speaker, according to the Knesset's by-laws no later than the date of the government's establishment.

Explanation of the bill states that it is intended to reconcile the continuity of the government's tenure with that of the Speaker of the Knesset, in order to prevent government anarchy. In Israel, like many Western democracies, the Prime Minister has a functioning Knesset, not a Speaker. Therefore, following the elections, Yuli Edelstein continued to serve as chairman by virtue of the principle of governing continuity.

According to the 1994 Knesset Law, a majority of 90 MKs is required to transfer an incumbent chairman.

Allegedly, the King's way of electing the chairman in majority 61 is open to white and blue. Benny Gantz received the mandate from the state president to establish a government. If he had a parliamentary majority, he would form a government and the chairman would be elected as the bylaw. But so far, attempts to form a government, relying on the common list that does not recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, have failed.

On March 19, the High Court petitioned a blue-white and three "public" petitioners on their own, who will order the Speaker of the Knesset for a meeting at which a new chairman will be elected. The High Court held the hearing on March 22. While the Speaker of the Knesset defended the right of the chairman to wait for the meeting to convene until the date of the government's establishment, the Speaker of the Knesset Mandelblit presented an opposing position that the meeting should be held as soon as possible. On March 23, the court "without ruling" in the petition On her behalf, the Speaker of the Knesset demanded that he notify the court that day, if he would be ready to convene the meeting by March 25.

Responding to a "High Court" proposal that a "sitting" will be elected to elect a new chairman, Edelstein replied that he refused to accept the ultimatum, emphasizing that he was acting lawfully, in the discretion that he was allowed to determine at the latest until the government was formed. He also cited examples of elected chairmen following elections even more than a month after the election date.

About an hour after Edelstein's response, a 19-page ruling was issued in which the High Court ordered the chairman to convene the meeting no later than March 25.

The High Court held that its intervention is necessary, since without it, "the fabric of democratic life" and "the foundations of the structure of our parliamentary system" will be harmed. The High Court did not address the response at all and reported that, when submitted, the verdict was already ready, which is evident from the speed of its grant.

The ruling was rendered without authority, while trampling on the independence of the legislature. According to Basic Law: The Knesset, "The Knesset will determine its working arrangements" What is not stipulated in the law - the Knesset will decide on the bylaws. The chairman, who is responsible for managing the affairs of the Knesset according to the by-laws, acted within the prescribed time frame. It should be noted that the rationale that the court made an amendment to the law does not hold the explanatory statements to the bill, nor the Knesset comments when the amendment was passed.

The result of the verdict is severe. The Blue and White Party is trying to produce governing anarchy. It seeks to elect a chairwoman for me in the majority of 61, who will not only interfere with government work, but if a Likud-led government is later established, it will need a majority of 90 to replace it.

I do not recognize Western democracy, in which the court intervened in the conduct of Parliament's internal affairs. In his decision, Justice Meltzer cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in England that ruled just the opposite of what was said in the ruling, namely: that each chair of the House of Representatives is empowered to convene the House and that his decision is not justified by the sovereignty of Parliament. In his ruling, which bears a black flag, the High Court trampled the Knesset's authority, without balance and without brakes. As I say to him - salute!

Talia Einhorn is a full professor at Ariel University and a member of the International Academy of Comparative Law