Democratic discourse against democratic institutions?

Since the 1980s, there has been a political debate regarding the appropriate authorities of the Supreme Court in Israel. This debate has increasingly become more polarized, and in the past year has progressed from rhetoric alone into action, with Israel’s right-wing government promoting legislation to curb the authority of the court. The current study examines critical narratives regarding this issue over four decades and explores the role of ultra-orthodox leadership in delegitimizing the court. Ultra-orthodoxy is a highly observant strand of Judaism. While many different ultra-orthodox communities exist in Israel, a majority of them may be considered conservative with regard to culture, politics, and lifestyle, living in closed-off communities. They are traditionally opposed to many liberal-democratic ideas, for instance, not allowing women to be elected for any political position, and rejecting any attempt to separate religion and state, advocating instead for the increased importance of Jewish religion in state institutions. Using an analysis of newspaper articles about key Supreme Court rulings, I argue that ultra-orthodox leadership changed the narrative used to criticize the court. In the 1980s-1990s, their leading narrative was religion, i.e., claiming that the Supreme Court hurts the Jewish religion. However, since the 2000s, critique against the court has been increasingly based on a democratic narrative. Ultra-orthodox leadership has increasingly used democratic principles, such as popular sovereignty and the separation of powers, to denounce Supreme Court rulings and to question the legitimacy of court decisions. This is especially notable because many ultra-orthodox communities are essentially opposed to liberal-democratic ideals, as these identify the will of the people as the source of sovereignty rather than divine power. Despite this, their leadership increasingly adopted liberal-democratic discourse. This case study demonstrates a unique process of simultaneous democratization and democratic backsliding. On the one hand, the increased use of liberal-democratic rhetoric indicates that Israeli ultra-orthodox leadership has grown more accepting of such ideas, suggesting a democratization process within this community. On the other hand, this rhetoric is used to delegitimize the Supreme Court and forms the basis for legislation meant to curb its authority. Such legislation threatens the court’s independence and its ability to protect the rights of individuals and minorities and may be categorized as a case of democratic backsliding. Therefore, this case is a unique example of a paradox of liberal democracy: a social group that was formerly openly opposed to liberal democracy seems to have adopted liberal-democratic narratives, at least to some extent. However, this group also uses said narrative to delegitimize and weaken one of the key institutions of liberal democracy. This poses an interesting question – might the use of liberal-democratic principles as a central delegitimation mechanism play an essential part in undermining them?