The long line to pass the Queen's coffin, and the British embrace of the institution of the monarchy, are puzzling to those who do not understand why the institution of the monarchy should be preserved.
The Queen has not ruled Britain for years, and the new King will not run the country.
In recent decades, the remnants of the crown's powers have been emptied, and only ceremonial powers remain in its hands alongside a collection of palaces, surviving clothing and a royal guard, which are a magnet for millions of tourists and a base for capturing British insiders, but are not relevant to the government of the kingdom.
The reason is clear.
In a democratic world, the basic premise is that the people are the sovereign and that the ability to direct the policy will be entrusted to the representatives of the public.
In a democracy, the king, who has never won the trust of the people and fulfills his role only because of his blue blood, has no legitimacy to actually govern and shape British policy.
But in Israel it seems that there are those who are looking for anti-democratic models.
Here the process is reversed.
In a series of decisions, in recent decades, the powers of elected officials have been emptied and transferred to non-elected bodies, chiefly the jurists.
Judges and legal advisers decide public questions, although they have never won the trust of the people.
This was the case with questions regarding the proper relationship between religion and state, such as in the decision whether to introduce leaven into the hospitals on Passover, and so in policy decisions regarding the economy, foreign affairs and security, entry into Israel and status.
Jurists even determine the meaning of Israel being a Jewish nation-state and intervene in the government's policy regarding settlements in the West Bank - such as in the invalidation of the settlement law. From the moment the Supreme Court ruled that "everything is settled", all political questions became legal, and the citizens' ability to influence the design of the policy was reduced and decreased.
The struggle between the jurists and the elected officials has turned into an open conflict in recent years.
Surprisingly, voices are now being heard that seek to officially change the system of government, and make it even more difficult for the public to influence policy, while expanding the possibility of a government that does not enjoy the trust of the people.
According to the plan that Gantz recently presented at the Israel Democracy Institute, in collaboration with the Center for Citizen Empowerment, the system of government must be changed so that there will be cases in which the prime minister serves even though he has not won the trust of the people.
According to their proposal, the person who won the most votes will serve even if he failed to form a coalition from among the majority of Knesset members, and the inability to pass a budget will not be a reason to topple the government.
Moreover - according to their opinion, a prime minister who formed a government but lost the trust of the coalition will remain in office until there are more than 70 MKs who oppose him. These changes claim to promote stability, but they are anti-democratic in essence and will allow a neutered government that will not be able to operate in the Knesset without the people's trust .
The attempt to make elected officials the King of England is not democratic.
They are ready to give them a car that survives, but to empty the position of legitimacy and authority.
This anti-democratic trend is wrong, and it harms us, the citizens first and foremost, since those who will replace the elected officials will be those who have never been elected.
The solution is the opposite: we must strengthen representativeness and governance capacity.
Democracy and citizen empowerment are important in our regime, and we must protect them and not allow oil to be carried in vain.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us