Ravitz's Quiet Revolution: Judicial criticism

Since I was elected to the Knesset over 18 years ago, most of my legislative work has been done within the framework of the parliament’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. Hundreds of bills and laws were discussed and changed by way of debate, ideological differences, brainstorming and clash of interests.

At the end of the process, matters were resolved after a mutual agreement or compromise had been reached. It was also necessary at times to use the rule of the majority. The Constitution Committee views itself as a representative of the entire Knesset and its 120 members.

For almost 60 years, our democratic life has witnessed pleasant discussions, arguments, compromises and votes. This can continue for as long as it takes until we all find the light, which is the ultimate truth, that can be found today only by those who believe in it.  Meanwhile, we can live our lives out of mutual respect to each other and to those who are different.

However, what will we do when confusion mounts and one of the three pillars of our democracy - Government, Legislative and Judicial – loses direction of its place in the democratic process, stomping over the other?

To put it simply, a great danger will befall us if the government acts independently and fails to fulfill its obligation as defined by the law, or when the Judiciary takes over the helm of the Knesset - the legislative arm.

The purpose of the bill I submitted, titled “Judicial Criticism,” is to reinstate respect in our lives and to ensure that each democratic arm fulfills its task. If a situation arises in which the Judiciary believes the legislature has acted in a manner that harms our basic laws or a humane way of life, it will re-submit the law back to the Knesset for further review and a final stamp of approval. 

After all, it is not worthy to adopt the opinion of 12 honorable judicial authorities, even if they are the cream of the crop, over the opinion of 120 MKs – a group that has legal experts, doctors, professors, religious and scientific scholars among it, and especially the representatives of the Israeli people.

To those who support drafting a constitution I say that the bill I proposed is a necessary precondition that could justify such a task.

Had there been a situation in which the debate between the Knesset’s laws and the judiciary’s legal interpretation confined itself only to prosaic matters and daily life quandaries, the legal situation that exists today could have remained unchanged, enabling the judiciary to continue its show of strength over the Knesset.

However, since the bulk of the debate lies within matters that are at the core of our society, namely the hard questions regarding state and religion, it is for these matters to be debated upon only by the Knesset, where, unlike the court, representatives of all groups in Israeli society can be found. The court cannot be allowed to decide on these matters since it can be ideologically one-dimensional and does not use compromise that is at the heart of a democracy. 

For decades now, the Knesset has been trying to bring about the drafting of a constitution for Israel, without success. If we cannot decide on a number of pre-determined agreements that would ensure that a constitution is drafted based on mutual agreement, there won’t be much success in the future either. One of these pre-determined agreements lies in the bill I proposed.