How does it happen that the day of voting in the Knesset plenum, the ultimate moment of realizing the will of the people, is declared a black day for democracy? The Israeli public is exposed to a bombardment of propaganda that portrays the government and the Knesset as dark forces that act knowingly and intentionally, contrary to the public interest. "Against the state", as the opposition leaders keep saying.
The Knesset of Israel is these days marked as a body that the public needs to be wary of, that democracy needs to defend itself against.
And what is it about?
A stable coalition of 64 mandates is leading a reform whose principles are anchored in the ideological discourse of the national camp in recent decades.
She was legally elected.
conducts transparent discussions.
Holds votes in the appropriate committee.
She went to the plenum to vote.
And somehow, precisely this process, so trivial, is called "predation".
So if lawful legislation is "the end of democracy", what is the democratic alternative of the opponents?
Stop the legislation and enter into negotiations in the President's House. That is, move the democratic process from its natural place - the House of Representatives - to extra-parliamentary territory. Then consult with the Chief of Staff and the Governor of the Bank of Israel, and involve experts from various think tanks.
Netanyahu and Levin - doing what they were elected to do, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Something along these lines, for example, was suggested by Yair Lapid.
That is, to expropriate deliberative democracy from its natural place, to curb the involvement of elected officials - and to bring them a finished product, apparently "agreed on", for a vote.
This means that someone else will do the parliamentary legwork: discuss, debate, flame, bargain, compromise and close a matter.
And this is called a "map".
Maybe it's better to let artificial intelligence write bills?
This is a terrible, value-based and procedural sloppiness of the Knesset.
And in an ironic way, it painfully illustrates one of the basic arguments of the supporters of the reform: the creeping devaluation of the status of the legislative authority needs to be corrected.
Even now, every citizen knows, a third reading is not enough;
There is another higher court that may be asked to review the law - and decide on it according to the value system of the "enlightened person".
This not only creates a chilling effect on future legislative initiatives, it also marks the Knesset as a risk area for democracy.
How many times has the hypothetical (and infantile) question been thrown into the studio spaces lately - "And if one day they pass a law against redheads?".
It is not pleasant for anyone to watch heated exchanges in committee debates or blatant bickering in the Knesset plenum.
But by any democratic standard, a loud debate between elected officials in the House of Representatives is better than closed discussions at "Camp David" in the Talbiah neighborhood of Jerusalem or anywhere else to be determined.
The call to "stop the legislation" and transfer the proposed reform to extra-parliamentary channels shames the MKs who are promoting it, and indicates the depth of contempt they have for their position. It is desirable that a reform be passed by consensus, but broad opposition to the moves of an elected coalition is not a reason to suspend the work of the legislative authority .
It is not the continuation of the legislation that will "break the rope", but the expropriation of the parliamentary debate from the members of the Knesset and the transfer of the oversight of legislative processes to a third party not chosen for that purpose.
This is, perhaps, the shortest distance from which you can reach the "end of democracy".
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