Democracy on Trial: Israel’s Judiciary and the Politics of Reform

In a rather quiet night in Jerusalem, the buzz of discussion about the judiciary in Israel is getting even more intense, and the Jerusalem in the early 2025 is the tension that is a bit familiar but even heavier. In March, the government enacted a law, which alters the process of judicial selection in Israel. This amendment was termed Amendment No. 4 to the Basic Law, which is the Judiciary that not only adjusts, but also alters the power.

This is what has changed, in real numbers: in the past, the Judicial Selection Committee consisted of nine individuals, three of which were Supreme Court justices, two of which were representatives of the Bar Association (i.e. legal professionals not working with the government), two ministers (including the Justice Minister, who is also the chairman of the committee), and two members of the Knesset (one of them being the coalition, the other opposition), but according to the new law there will be no more two seats of the Bar Association, instead one attorney will be chosen by the ruling coalition, another by the opposition. In the case of Supreme Court nominations, five committee members make it now, provided that one of the five members is a coalition member, and one of the five is an opposition member. Even lower-court judge appointments now have bailout conditions of at least one of the five votes needed to be supported by one judge, one coalition representative and one opposition/public representative.

The other notifying shift is that the new law will come into force in the new Knesset (following elections in October 2026). To that end, the ancient thresholds and regulations prevail.

Why is it important then is the question: according to the supporters, this provides greater democratic legitimacy. They also reason the judges have on some occasions blocked laws or even government schemes and the citizens (by electing leaders) should have a better say on who interprets the law. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar have indicated that the citizens will have more confidence in the judicial process once the political people are given more say in the appointment of the judges.

However, opponents are worried about something different, namely that the reform will politicize the appointment process, decrease accountability, undermine minority rights, and make the Court another arm of political majorities that are in power at the moment. Legal academics have cautioned that absent effective checks, this may undermine judicial performance particularly of Supreme Court justices where the new legislation requires that a judge (one of the Supreme Court justices) consent, before being appointed.

The opinion of the people is divided, and it speaks volumes. In early January 2025 while a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute has underlined that approximately 61 per cent of the Israelis feel that judicial overhaul should not be the priority of the government at the moment and only a small percentage of them think that judicial overhaul should be the priority of the government. According to another poll, 53 percent of them are in support of retaining the current make-up of the Judicial Selection Committee in which only about 27 percent of them are supportive of the very idea of introducing politicians (to the already existing).

Conversely, backing of the changes is much greater among right wing Israelis particularly Likud and religious parties. Yet, even among probable voters in the coalition, there is concern: most of them say that although they can be in support of reforms, they fear going too far.

The other fact that could not be closed eyes is the scale of the protests that continue shaking the country. On the day of enactment, the lawmakers protested by storming out of the Knesset and the house was left half- empty and tense. There on the street, rage foamed at the mouth. People scrambled out in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheva and smaller towns in Israel with flags and placards in their hands, many of them had never been involved in politics like ordinary citizens, professionals, students, even retirees. Among them were lawyers, ex-judges, university professors and activists who were all united by the escalating fear that the reform is turning out to be a no-go area. The protests are not subduing during weeks: on the contrary they have evolved into some sort of moral stand, a group demand that this moment cannot just quietly slip past. The opponents have started to appeal to petitions, judicial proceedings, and legal commentary to undermine certain aspects of the reform most notably those which lessen the role of judges in the choice of Supreme Court justices. The concern now, is that the constitutional norms are not printed but they are merely incorporated in the Basic Laws and judicial precedent which is bound to be compromised.

The question that remains unresolved is how these developments will work out into reality? The question is whether the government will actually select more conservative or ideologically oriented justices. Probably yes. Still, it is the question of doubt that leads to the swiftness that which cases are heard; whether the Court will still believe it capable of acting as check; whether the minority-groups feel themselves secure; whether the public trust prevails these remain all unanswered.

This is where Israel is: this nation has altered the principles of lawsuit judges selection and sway power to the politicians. There are common citizens who are in favor of that as well but on the other hand some are also concerned. What is important is the behaviour of the new system here. When the junior species of justice are observed to be chosen on lines of loyalty rather than merit, or laws are promulgated which do not in any way consult the majority of the minority, faith will be lost. Provided, however, the reform process does not harm fundamental rights, provided that the Court remains courageous, fair and legit in the eyes of the population, there is still a possibility that Israel may be able to pass this test without losing its democratic soul.