Throughout my studies in Israel, I have come across a reality that I like to repeat very often; Israel is a social laboratory. And for that reason, I am pleased to be able to study social sciences in such an interesting country full of constant experiences.
I could even admit that in my native country I have not felt such a vibrant political sensation in my life, taking into account that I am from Ecuador and that usually, as in all undeveloped countries, protests, revolutions, reforms, etc. turn out to be very aggressive, violent and with uncertain results. There is something in Israel that makes each of the people who inhabit this wonderful country feel a sense of belonging, duty, and role. Although I am not a citizen, I have felt that I am a fundamental part of Israeli society, like another cog in an organized machine. Therefore it has been very difficult for me to be away from the political debate on Israel. I still remember the class I received about the judicial revolution, Aharon Barak, the legal history of Israel, and the 180-degree change that was implemented in the country. but above all, I remember how silent it happened, I had never heard of a political change of such magnitude that has been carried out in a strategically silent way in society. Something unprecedented in my head, suddenly I began to tie up loose ends. Paradoxically, the less restricted the judiciary is, the more mistrust it generates in citizens. the growing sense among different groups in Israel that the court is ruling against their values therefore, prestige is lost when a state power begins to denote "tyrannical" traits to a certain extent.
According to one of the greatest liberal philosophers of the twentieth century, Friederich Hayek "The difference between a free democratic regime and a non-free regime is that in a free regime, a person is allowed to do everything that is not forbidden by law, and in a non-free regime, a person is not allowed to do anything that is not allowed by law." meaning the broad the scope of justiciability is, the more poses a danger to individual liberties. However, defenders of judicial activism may propose that the law cannot take into account all private cases and that the public is not always adequate to judge things properly. It is therefore necessary for the court to increase involvement and clarify the lacunae of law.
There is also a problem of the source of authority. In a democracy, the sovereign is the people. The constitutional revolution and judicial activism, even for the sake of the discussion we assume that their intentions are good, were done without the authority (people) of the sovereign and his representatives. It expresses aristocracy, like the philosophers in Plato's Politeia, power is handed over to an educated elite, "enlightened members of society" in Barak's words. Nevertheless, proponents of judicial activism will argue on the other hand that the court in Israel does not negate the importance of the elected institutions but only balances them, and these balances are important in a democratic regime.
Both sides of the debate have points to defend but after each demonstration, I have felt how each side has become even more polarized in the debate without acknowledging the criticism within their arguments, there have been 17 weeks of demonstrations, and I have lost classes because universities as well became involved in the political debate, every day the tension is felt even more, but behind all the negative it is fascinating to be able to be part of one of the most challenging and critical moments within Israeli society, the point where 75 years of history of the modern state of Israel converge on a defining moment of Israeli politics.
Martin Espinosa came to Israel as an international student in 2021. He is currently studying political science and communications at Bar-Ilan University. He has a passion for politics and social sciences.
