Examining the Legal Reform in the Light of the Mandate Theory

---

To access the full article in Hebrew, please click here

Following the 37th Israeli government's election, the government declared its intention to implement extensive judicial reforms, which it justified as necessary to address what it termed the "judicial reform." This reform was presented as a means to restore Israeli democracy to its authentic form by curbing judicial overreach and reinstating the principles of separation of powers and governmental independence. The reform aimed to correct what the government characterized as a deviation from democratic norms, asserting that the existing judiciary had accumulated excessive power that interfered with the proper functioning of democratic governance.

The term "Mandate Theory," referenced by the government, implies a perceived electoral mandate to enact these judicial changes. The government argued that its electoral victory granted it the authority to initiate significant judicial reforms, framing this initiative as an effort to fulfill the electorate's will and restore the natural balance of power between the branches of government. By invoking "Mandate Theory," the government sought to legitimize the reforms and counter claims of anti-democratic motivations.

This introduction outlines the central thesis of the article, which critically examines the legitimacy of the government's claim to a reformative mandate based on its electoral victory. Furthermore, it explores the broader implications of these reforms on Israel's legal and political landscape.

The detailed analysis, including citations and comprehensive arguments, is presented in the full Hebrew article accessible above.

The proposal for judicial reform emerged within a broader context of Israeli political dynamics and public debates over the balance of power between government branches. The 37th government, formed in late 2022, launched a comprehensive effort to reform the judiciary with the stated purpose of recalibrating the balance of power to reflect the principles of democracy as envisioned by the current administration.

Central to this effort was the contention that the judiciary had overstepped its authority, encroaching upon domains traditionally reserved for the legislative and executive branches. The reform agenda included proposed changes aimed at limiting the authority of the Supreme Court, altering the process of judicial appointments, and redefining the relationship between the courts and the elected government.

Critics of the reform argued that it threatened the democratic structure of the state by undermining judicial independence and concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch. Proponents, however, maintained that the reform was necessary to restore democratic principles by ensuring that elected officials held appropriate authority over unelected judges.

The reform initiative was framed within a broader discourse concerning constitutional interpretation and the separation of powers. Proponents of the reform frequently invoked the concept of "Mandate Theory," asserting that the electoral victory of the ruling coalition provided sufficient legitimacy to enact substantial judicial changes.

The theory posits that electoral success grants a government the authority to implement its policy agenda, including structural reforms to state institutions. However, opponents argued that this interpretation oversimplifies the complexities of democratic governance, particularly in a system where checks and balances are designed to prevent the abuse of power by any single branch.

Analysis of Government Claims

Critics of the government's approach emphasized the importance of judicial independence as a cornerstone of democratic governance. They contended that undermining the judiciary’s authority would erode the checks and balances essential for protecting minority rights and ensuring that governmental power is exercised within the boundaries of the law.

Proponents countered that the judiciary had amassed excessive power over the years, interfering in matters beyond its appropriate purview and thereby distorting the democratic process. They further asserted that their electoral victory provided them with a popular mandate to address this imbalance through comprehensive judicial reform.

Broader Implications and Conclusion

The debate over judicial reform in Israel is emblematic of broader global discussions concerning the appropriate balance between judicial authority and democratic governance. While proponents of the reform argue that it is necessary to restore democratic legitimacy, opponents warn of the dangers associated with undermining judicial independence.

The implications of this debate extend beyond the immediate political context, raising fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and the rule of law. The controversy surrounding the reform also highlights deeper societal divides concerning the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic system.

This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the arguments presented by both sides of the debate, drawing upon legal theory, historical context, and contemporary political dynamics. The full Hebrew text, containing detailed arguments and references, is available at the top of this page.

Suggested citation:

Examining the Legal Reform in the Light of the Mandate Theory, 48 Tel-Aviv University Law Review Forum -Tguviot, December 22, 2023.