Since January of 2023, Israeli society has been engaged in an intense public debate over the authorities of the Supreme Court. The right-wing government is seeking to pass what they have called a “judicial reform” to limit the authorities of the court, and this has been met with intense resistance from opposition parties and leaders from civil society. This study examines the different conceptions of democracy conveyed in the ongoing public debate in Israel, using fieldwork at demonstrations for and against the judicial reform, analysis of Twitter posts on the subject, and a poll of 813 Israeli citizens.
Analysis of these sources reveals that elite groups on both sides, pro-reform and anti-reform, are using the framing of democracy to convince the public of their views, with each group claiming that their policies and proposals will protect Israeli democracy. However, the interpretation of the word “democracy” is different between the two political camps. Anti-reform elite groups are promoting a liberal understanding of democracy and highlighting the importance of checks and balances on government power, and equal civil rights and liberties for all citizens. Pro-reform elite groups are promoting an understanding of democracy that is more in line with populist views, whereby the term is understood as an anti-elite rule of the majority. Among citizens, the framing of democracy has resonated more with the anti-reform camp, who frequently use the idea of democracy to explain their resistance to the reform. In contrast, citizens from the pro-reform camp have been less likely to adopt the framing of democracy, and despite using ideas that are similar to those presented by right-wing elite groups, tend to refrain from explaining their support of the reform as being in support of democracy.
This may indicate that a liberal understanding of democracy, though perhaps more contentious now than in the past, is still the leading interpretation among Israeli citizens. Despite this, a significant number of citizens exhibit support for the reform, which raises the question: will the dominance of a liberal interpretation of democracy exert a conclusive level of influence over the outcome of this conflict?
