Three ways the democracy movement can win over the next two years

Insights from the past two years that might help the protest movement defeat the judicial change legislation

It has been two years, to the week, since the newly appointed Minister of Justice Yariv Levin announced his intended changes to Israel’s legal system, what supporters called a Reform and the opposition called an Overhaul. Two years of weekly protests, of heart wrenching conflict between neighbors, among family members. Two years punctuated by one of the worst tragedies to befall the Jewish People since the founding of the State.

To be upfront, I believe the responsibility for the tear, for the schism, for the tragedy, primarily lies with the current government. Those with the power to advance legislation also had the power to moderate it to avoid a head-on collision. That does not, however, absolve the movements that organized civil society opposition from learning what they could have done differently.

True, the persistence and scale of the protests successfully raised the cost of passing the legislation. The legislative blitz planned by Levin was undoubtedly delayed. Without the ever-present drumbeat of the protest it is hard to imagine the government would have considered any changes to Levin’s plans. Without the protests, Israel would have been farther down the path towards a government-controlled judiciary than it is today.

Yet despite the regularity of the protests, the movements have yet to change the votes of any legislators. Whenever a vote came up to pass Levin’s legislation, the coalition voted for it as a block. Even former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant who warned of the dangers inherent in passing the legislation – dangers realized on October 7, 2023 – voted for it.

Since the goal of the protest movement is to stop the legislation outright, which would require it to be defeated in a vote or dropped from the legislative agenda, the movements need to admit their strategy hasn’t performed. The movements were unable to convince the five MKs required to switch sides.

Yet the struggle over the legislation is far from over. If we want a liberal democratic Israel to survive through the next elections, here are my three observations about the movement’s current strategy, and suggestions for an alternative approach:

1. The protests remain caught up in conservative positions and counterrevolutionary actions. The movements should take a forward-looking approach, declaring a vision for a more just judicial system and form of government for Israel. 

It is entirely reasonable that the immediate reaction of Israel’s civil society to what Levin declared be to reject it outright. To so fundamentally change the rules of the game with a simple electoral majority is the definition of the tyranny of the majority. To do so without first putting in guardrails protecting the rights of the citizens from politically motivated – rights that do not exist in Israel due to the absence of a constitution – is terrifying.

Yet as time went on, the movements that led the protest had every opportunity to listen to that part of the populace that supported the legislation, and to put forward an alternative vision of the judicial system that would address their legitimate concerns. To build consensus. Instead of doing so, the movements rallied around the courts, around the civil servants, around the status quo, seeking to conserve the system and its perceived inequities that inspired so many to support a reform in the first place.

The counterproductivity of the movement’s conservativity was explained best by Yaakov Maslawi, the owner of a stall in the Ramla market who still supports Benjamin Netanyahu. In an interview with Haaretz’s Ran Shimoni, Maslawi shared the obvious fact that while “many people have bad personal experiences of the judicial system,” those experiences are ignored by the thousands who take up the flag and vow to protect the courts each week. Those people the movement ignores are the crucial minority the government fears losing.

To win popular consensus, the protest movements need to switch from focusing on saving the past to winning the future. From seeking to protect the status quo, to presenting a better government structure where individual rights are sacrosanct. An Israel where the courts cannot be bought by the wealthy or the powerful. Where every individual is treated fairly before the law. Yes, much of that exists within the slogans and banners of the movement, but it is drowned out by the expressions of loyalty to the courts, the declaration of fealty to the status quo.

Beyond winning over the minority to build consensus, remaining counterrevolutionary has also severely limited the movements’ ability to exert pressure on the political echelon, and most importantly failed to recruit Members of Knesset (MKs) who, with their votes, could block the legislation. MKs, after all, want to be elected. If MKs were to feel that a new political force making new demands were rising, and that this political force represented a broad consensus that would threaten their ability to make it to the next Knesset, they may decide to change their vote.

2. The protest movements targeted the wrong MKs. They should have avoided the ministers and MKs at the top of the lists, and instead focused on the backbenchers who have little to no chance of making it into the Knesset in the next elections. 

Week after week the protest movement focused its pressure on the top of the Likud list, on Yoav Gallant, on Nir Barkat, on Avi Dichter, on Yuli Edelstein. The logic at the time seemed sound: since these individuals come from the old Likud, the classically liberal Likud, they might be persuaded to see how Levin’s legislation threatened the character of the State the Likud fought so hard to build. Unfortunately, not a single one of these was willing to change their vote.

It can safely be assumed the reason the Likudnikim at the head of the list were not swayed is that they had far more to gain by staying in the Likud than leaving it. Gallant’s resignation from the Knesset this last week is a case in point.

Not so the backbenchers of the Likud and its other coalition partners. The Likud currently has 32 seats, meaning that approximately 10 sitting MKs have little to no chance of making it into the next Knesset. Even and especially if they stay uniquely loyal to the Likud. For example from the Likud, Boaz Bismuth, Gila Gamliel, Dan Ilouz.

Instead of wasting time and effort on party leaders who have little to gain from turning against the party, the movements should focus on enticing the backbenchers to jump ship. Promise them a better chance to get reelected, to do the good they dedicated their life to achieving. To do so, they would need to know there is a reasonable chance for them to have a seat in a party that will get at least 8 seats in the next elections, with 4 seats reserved for sitting MKs courageous enough to join in building a party committed to government reform through consensus. But to do that, the movements need to get political.

3. The movements stayed non-political for far too long. Now is the time to engage in the political process and form a political movement the country hasn’t seen in decades. A movement with lively local chapters, broad-based membership, and a lively and diverse spectrum of views to which we can recruit sitting MKs. 

It is no secret that today’s politics are basically controlled by the same politicians who were around in the early 2000s, a fact that has destroyed public trust in the government and Knesset. It is also no secret that Israel’s political parties are, for the most part, fiefdoms controlled by one autocrat or another. Even the Likud and Labor, historically democratic parties, are notoriously controlled by special interests and opaque central committees.

The movements fighting for a liberal, democratic Israel could change that by building a truly democratic political movement, one dedicated above all else to a new and better vision of government. A political movement dedicated to building consensus through deep dialogue with all sectors of Israeli society. One that declares that we all win when we work towards a shared future, together.

To attract the backbenchers, this new party should reject the brand of Left or Right, or even Center. It needs to establish a new political stance, a commitment to consensus, championing the citizen, the taxpayer. It would bring together people from various backgrounds and geopolitical ideologies who are all devoted to building a system of law that reflects our values and culture. It would draw deep into our tradition and the lessons we’ve learned in Exile to account for the pains felt by everyday people. A constrained government that ensures the rights of Israelis will not be trampled on by the momentary majority holding power at the time.

I know of some efforts to build new parties to run in the next elections. Most have yet to be launched due to a fear of lost momentum in the media cycle. Delaying their launch is a mistake for two reasons. First, because it takes time to build a truly democratic, responsive movement that convinces the electorate that this is not just another party with the same faces, same positions. Second, because Levin is only getting started.

Let us hope that the next two years will be better than the two terrible years we all lived through. That we can learn from the past and use our newfound wisdom to build a better tomorrow. By transitioning from a conservative, defensive approach to a future-oriented, inclusive stance, by focusing our energy on those MKs who have more to gain by the new than the old. By building a new platform that can align the self-interest of enough MKs with the aspirations of the movement, we may indeed succeed in ensuring Israel remain a liberal and democratic State for generations to come.