Peloni
Jerusalem – High Court building. Photo by www.pikiwiki.org.il, CC BY 2.5, Wikipedia
For the first time in Israel’s history, the government has formally declared it will not comply with a ruling from the High Court, raising the potential of a constitutional crisis. The dispute in question relates to the Council of the Second Authority, a regulatory body which oversees commercial broadcasting.
In June, the High Court handed down a ruling which stated that the council could continue operating despite it lacking the statutorily required quorum following the resignation of several members. The government unanimously resolved that subsequent decisions made by the council under these circumstances will not be recognized despite the ruling of the High Court, arguing that the court had exceeded its authority by contradicting the plain language of the 1990 law which was being countermanded based solely on the arbitrary whim of the High Court asserting that it held any authority to do so.
The controversy stems from disputed appointments to the Second Authority and allegations that the government sought to influence the regulator in order to block the proposed acquisition of Channel 13 by a group of investors critical of the government. Petitioners, including the Union of Journalists and the Movement for Quality Government, accused the government of attempting to politicize the regulator, while the government maintained that it was defending the law and the separation of powers.
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin have both defended the move, contending that the Knesset, not the judiciary, determines the law and that the court cannot create powers that legislation does not grant. Somewhat ironically, opposition leaders, including Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett, and Gadi Eisenkot, condemned the govt’s decision to enforce the law as written as a violation of the rule of law. They went on to warn that the govt’s actions which expose the hypocrisy of the court and its arbitrary rulings threatened Israel’s democratic system. The reality is that the threat to the democratic system instead comes from the High Court which grants itself authorities it does not have, while it ignores the legitimate binding laws which should be the basis on which judicial ruling are made. Such political decisions as are made by the governing parties will of course carry with it the political repercussions of either winning or losing the support of the people, and of course, consent of the governed, rather than the consent of appointed Jurists. While the High Court is intended to play an important role in overseeing that laws are not violated, they are instead substituting their own vision of legal standards in place of legitimate laws based solely on their arbitrary claim that they have any right at all to so abuse the principle of consent of the governed when they do so. The will of the people must remain as the pinnacle feature of democratic rule rather than an unbridled judiciary which sees its authority as being completely unrestrained.
The fact that the resulting constitutional crisis is rising amid a political season leading to the fall election will give the people an ability to offer their own input on this topic.
Sources
This might be the start of something useful!