Israel’s Basic Laws and Democratic Backsliding: A Political Sociological Perspective

This paper examines Israel’s Basic Laws through the lens of political sociology, situating them within broader debates on democratic backsliding, authoritarian drift, and the resilience of democratic norms. Unlike most liberal democracies, Israel lacks a single codified written constitution. Its constitutional order instead consists of a set of Basic Laws that regulate institutional arrangements, fundamental rights, and the balance of powers. While historically conceived as a pragmatic and incremental response to deep ideological, religious, and societal divisions, the Basic Laws have increasingly become a central arena of political struggle amid contemporary challenges to democracy. In light of the events following 7 October, the paper explicitly asks how Israel’s distinctive constitutional configuration may have facilitated the radicalisation of political conflict and the escalating recourse to violence. Drawing on historical, legal, and sociological perspectives, the paper argues that Israel’s Basic Laws provide a revealing case study of how constitutional frameworks can both enable and constrain illiberal and/or authoritarian tendencies. Historically, the gradual and fragmented development of the Basic Laws reflects unresolved tensions surrounding national identity, religion–state relations, security, and minority rights. Legally, their evolving constitutional status—particularly the expanded role of judicial review since the 1990s—has positioned the courts as key actors in the defence of liberal-democratic principles, while simultaneously provoking intense political backlash. Sociologically, the Basic Laws can be read as expressions of power relations and collective identities, both shaping and being shaped by struggles between majoritarian nationalism, liberal-democratic norms, and the claims of marginalised groups. Recent political crises surrounding proposed reforms aimed at weakening judicial oversight highlight how populist and nationalist actors deploy democratic rhetoric and appeals to “the will of the people” in order to undermine institutional checks and balances. These dynamics resonate with broader global patterns of democratic erosion, including the normalisation of exclusionary discourse, the polarisation of political culture, and the de-legitimation of legal and expert authority. At the same time, the Israeli case foregrounds forms of resistance and resilience, including mass protests, civic mobilisation, and transnational advocacy that seek to defend constitutional principles, minority protections, and democratic accountability. By bridging macro-level processes of democratic backsliding with meso-level institutional conflicts and micro-level forms of civic engagement, this paper contributes to comparative and transnational debates on democratic decline. It demonstrates how constitutional ambiguity can become a critical fault line in contemporary authoritarian projects—particularly under conditions of acute crisis—while also offering resources for contestation. Read through the logics activated by the events of 7 October 2023 and their aftermath, the Israeli case shows how states of emergency, securitisation, and moral polarisation can intensify existing constitutional tensions and reshape the boundaries between legality, violence, and democratic accountability. Ultimately, the analysis underscores the intersection of institutions, political ideologies, and the sociological fabric of societies experiencing profound democratic stress.