Likud Primaries Reveal Deep Divide Between Populist and Establishment Right

The recent Likud primaries in Israel exposed a near tie between two major factions within the party: the establishment right and the populist right. The populist faction, which opposes unelected centers of power and demands more authority for elected institutions, tends to be more colorful and grassroots-oriented, while the establishment faction emphasizes trust in institutions and the rule of law. This internal struggle reflects a broader global political shift where traditional working-class and peripheral voters have moved rightward, challenging elites who prioritize expertise and institutional constraints.

This conflict is particularly intense in Israel due to the judiciary's expanded role since the 1990s, including the Supreme Court's power to overturn legislation, culminating in a 2024 ruling that marked a shift from democracy to what some describe as juristocracy. Historically, the Israeli right supported judicial independence as a safeguard against left-wing dominance, but now many right-wing voters question whether unconditional defense of existing institutions truly protects democracy.

Experts like Professor Noam Gidron characterize Likud as a center-right establishment party that has become unusually populist compared to European counterparts. The term "populism" is often used pejoratively, but it can also represent a democratic backlash against unaccountable elites. The article stresses that the real issue is not style but substance: who holds power after elections. Both unchecked populism and elitism can be anti-democratic, but without popular sovereignty, democracy cannot endure.

The Likud primaries did not resolve this fundamental tension between a vision of monarchy-like institutional trust and one emphasizing popular sovereignty. The article concludes that while the populists' style may be debated, the question of who truly governs, the people or unelected elites, remains paramount.