The recent wave of protests in Israel exposed the underlying problems of Israeli society: the deep social division, the lack of stable governmental institutions and the lack of commitment to a shared ethos among Israelis. What started as demonstrations against specific constitutional changes aiming to curtail judicial review and accord the government more power, developed into calls for a new social contract and a constitution that will entrench this contract.
The call for such a contract is genuine and it results from the weakness and flaws of the existing social and legal arrangements of Israeli society. The 1948 Declaration of Independence laid down a plan for the election of a constitutional assembly that would enact a constitution. This plan never materialized: the constitutional assembly declared itself to be the Knesset and instead of enacting a full constitution, the 1950 Harari decision declared that the Knesset would engage in a process of enacting Basic Laws, which together will form the Israeli constitution. However, the process is still ongoing.
The features of Israel’s constitutional framework – temporary turned permanent, partial and ridden with holes and disagreements – are symptoms of a larger problem that characterize Israel’s social and legal arrangements. Israel lacks stable, comprehensive agreements on the most pivotal questions, from the relationship between the state and religion, to the status of rights, the authority of the judiciary and the duties of different sectors of Israeli society both among themselves and towards the state. The crisis of solidarity and the level of distrust within Israeli society have ever been so severe.
As Israel reaches its 75th anniversary, it is time to constitute a new social contract for Israel. At the center of this contact is Israeli identity – an identity that did not exist in 1948, when Israel was established but has evolved in the 75 years that have passed. This identity encompasses all of Israel’s citizens: Jews and Arabs, descendants of Mizrachi and Ashkenazi origin, and men and women. The state’s institutions, constitutional framework and division of resources must reflect that Israel belongs to all.
ENSURING THAT this is indeed the case requires, first and foremost, resolving the current crisis of representation. This crisis is both structural and substantive. From a structural perspective, the instability of the political system is a result of the shortcomings of the existing electoral system. This electoral system, which was established in the early days of the state without a thorough public discussion or substantive justifications, rewards sectoral parties and as a result, encourages polarization. It is time to consider a move toward regional elections, which can offer a path to break down the sectoralism that currently dominates Israeli politics and gives rise to local, grass-root interests and needs.
In addition to the electoral system, the current form of government is unable to provide for the day-to-day needs of Israelis. The concentration of power in the hands of the central government and the cultural diversity in Israel all justify taking local government more seriously. Transferring power to local authorities can allow structuring services in a manner that responds to local needs, increases democratization and assists in easing tensions that stem from policies that are dictated from the top-down.
Finally, no social contract can be complete without a full bill of rights. In the case of Israel, this would implies three main things. First, all individuals that are subject to the control of the state must enjoy equal rights.
Second, it is essential to separate the state and religion. When Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty was enacted in 1992, the existing status quo with respect to the state and religion was entrenched as part of the political compromise that enabled the law’s enactment. However, from a substantive perspective, this status quo has dire implications for religious freedom and gender equality and cannot be justified.
The third issue is the status of social, economic and cultural rights. For way too long, these rights have been regarded as second-grade rights, recognized only in the minimum. This is a wrong that must be corrected. Social, economic and cultural rights reflect the commitment of members of the political community to each other’s well-being and are necessary to promote a just society. They should thus be at the heart of the Israeli social contract.
The writer is a constitutional and international law expert and senior fellow at The Institute for Israeli Thought.