Likud Party's Liberal Identity Questioned Amid Judicial Overhaul
Translated & summarized from Zman Yisrael by baba
The Likud party, historically a liberal force in Israeli politics, is facing scrutiny over its shift towards legislation that critics argue undermines democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary. This has led to international downgrades of Israel's democratic status and internal debate about the party's evolving identity and its adherence to liberal principles.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Likud's historical liberal identity is being questioned due to recent legislative actions.
- Legislation has been introduced to weaken the judiciary and other watchdogs.
- International bodies have downgraded Israel's democratic status, citing these actions.
- Party leaders have publicly challenged judicial authority and court rulings.
- Internal party dynamics show a growing influence of right-wing factions.
- Likud has joined a European far-right political alliance.
Historically identifying as a liberal party, the Likud, founded in 1973 through a merger including the Herut party led by Menachem Begin and the Israeli Liberal Party, has seen its core tenets challenged. While its constitution guarantees the rule of law and civil rights, the party has, over the past three years, spearheaded legislation perceived as undermining the judiciary, watchdogs, and the media. This shift has coincided with a growing influence of right-wing, messianic, and even Haredi elements within its base. Despite maintaining rhetoric of a "free market," the Likud has supported measures since 2023 to weaken the courts, the Attorney General, and the independence of various state institutions, including the IDF, police, and media.
International assessments, such as the V-Dem Institute's classification, have downgraded Israel's democratic status from "liberal democracy" to "electoral democracy" for the first time in over 50 years, citing the government's actions against the judicial system. The Likud's foundational figures, Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin, are seen as having respected judicial rulings, even when in disagreement. However, the current leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has adopted a different approach, diverging from past commitments to judicial independence.
Key legislative actions promoted or supported by the Likud since late 2022 include the annulment of the reasonableness test for government decisions, a move that significantly curtailed judicial review and was later partially overturned by the Supreme Court. The "impeachment law" was amended to narrow the grounds for declaring a prime minister incapacitated, a change seen as personal and facing judicial scrutiny. Legislation altering the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, granting politicians greater control, was also passed, though its implementation is deferred to the next Knesset. Additionally, a proposed "Associations Law" aims to impose a heavy tax on foreign donations to NGOs, potentially impacting left-wing organizations, and communications laws have been advanced to increase government influence over media outlets, raising concerns about press freedom.
Beyond legislation, Likud leaders have publicly questioned the authority of the courts and watchdogs. Statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi have challenged the principle of judicial supremacy and the interpretation of law by the courts. This rhetoric has been met with strong criticism from legal figures, who have warned against anarchy and disrespect for court rulings. The party has also seen internal shifts, with active members showing stronger support for the judicial overhaul than the general electorate, and organized factions influencing the party's Knesset list.
Internationally, the Likud has joined the "Patriots for Europe" alliance, a group of far-right parties, and has engaged with European far-right leaders, raising questions about its alignment with liberal international norms. The article suggests that the party's internal dynamics and legislative agenda indicate a departure from its historical liberal identity, with a growing influence of factions whose goals have previously been blocked by the judiciary.
Mentioned