Is Israel's Democracy Dying?

by AARYAMAN NIJHAWAN*

Many consider Israel to be the sole democracy in the Middle East. This is not true.

While it may be prudent to claim that the Israeli electoral system might be the most democratic, this in itself isn’t enough to guarantee the overall democratic character of the Israeli political system. Over the last two decades, there have been increasing concerns that Israel, like other established democracies, is undergoing a slow, subtle but consistent democratic decline.

While it is true that in the anarchical reality of international relations states mainly focus on their self-interests, democratic states with their ardent and steadfast support of human rights, freedom of speech, and civil liberties don’t undertake gross violations of international law and war crimes. However, the current conflict in Gaza, which many scholars argue is akin to an unfolding genocide, paints a grim picture of Israel's respect for international law.

As the current Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu won a sixth term on December 29, 2022, he was part of a right-wing coalition where his Likud Party was the most ‘moderate’ by comparison. Unsurprisingly, the members that he elected – Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Yoav Galant, among others – led the formation of the most far-right Israeli government in the country’s history. Palestinians and Arab states were rightly concerned as it meant detrimental news regarding any sort of peaceful settlement on mutually agreeable terms within the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Their concerns aren’t unfounded.

Since gaining power, the new government has aggressively pushed for the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories that are seen as illegal by the global community and published a new Middle East peace plan that made no mention of Palestinian territories and showcased Israeli territories as including the entirety of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A string of newly approved and controversial legislation – the Nation-State Law, the Loyalty Oath, the Boycott Bill, the Nakba Bill – have made the country more constitutionally racial and discriminative towards non-Jewish sections of society.

The new far-right government has also seriously hindered the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court, which has repeatedly intervened and rejected the Executive’s actions that are seen as unreasonable. The Israeli Supreme Court, one of the important independent pillars of Israel’s political system, had at one point rejected its government’s stance that its actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip don’t amount to ‘occupation.’ The removal of this significant check and balance in Israeli politics heralded the death knell of democracy in the country.

Furthermore, the so-called democratic fabric (if it even existed in the first place) is now totally absent in light of the current conflict in Gaza. The remaining judicial overhaul measures of the seriously weakened national judiciary have been suspended following the formation of a new emergency government by a Prime Minister who is facing a corruption trial which might end his political career.

Critics of such viewpoints declare that when national security is endangered, democracy must take a back seat at least for a while as the state battles a conflict that might threaten its own existence. In isolation, they are right; in the current scenario, not really.

In understanding why the critics’ arguments are misplaced it is important to introduce the concept of ‘securitization.’ In international relations theory, securitization refers to the alleviation of a normal state issue to the level of a ‘security issue’. It is usually undertaken by national governments who by declaring that an issue poses an “existential threat” to the nation, can access extraordinary powers under public support which they otherwise would be unable to under normal circumstances. The concept of securitization was championed by the Copenhagen School of International Relations when it was coined by Ole Wæver in 1993.

The securitization of the United States started distinctly after the attacks of 9/11, while in Israel they’re a common theme for garnering public support for IDF actions, especially during the current conflict in Gaza. A prominent example is a poll conducted by Geocartography Knowledge Group which concluded that more than half of Israeli respondents were willing to limit press freedom if the media poses a threat to the state’s image.

But who decides whether they pose a threat to state interest? Ironically, it is the Israeli government, which has banned, outlawed, and prohibited operations of international and Arab media outlets las well as labeled organizations that demanded investigation into civilian deaths in Gaza as “anti-Semitic”. Meanwhile, more than sixty journalists have been already killed in the Palestinian city, making it the deadliest conflict for journalists in over 30 years.

The UN authorities have estimated 10,600 civilian casualties with 18,600 injured in the Ukrainian conflict since 24th February 2023, compared to 17,500 deaths and 46,500 injured during the Gaza conflict. In a case of remarkable duplicity, President Biden declared Russian actions as “genocide” while commenting that he had “no confidence” in the civilian death counts being reported from Gaza.

Recently, the Secretary General of the United Nations took an unprecedented measure by invoking Article 99 of the UN Charter. An emergency session of the Security Council was convened to discuss the issue of an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The United States was the sole member who vetoed the motion.

Securitization often follows hand-in-hand with democratic backsliding, which is currently threatening the social fabric of Israeli society, apart from accelerating the country’s decline into authoritarianism and, in extreme circumstances, into a fascist theocracy. If befallen, it would be the world’s biggest irony, that the people persecuted by a fascist regime ended up establishing a fascist theocracy of their own.