Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks in the Knesset on March 26, 2025. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: Israel-Freedom Isn’t Unlimited for Us or Our Leaders
With the “Judicial Reform” package, the Israeli government is trying to give itself far more freedom of action and policymaking by relatively weakening the judiciary – the judges as well as governmental judicial advisory civil servants (e.g., its in-house Attorney-General). This debate follows the usual political lines: Right (pro such weakening) and Left (against these attempts). While the purely political element is always present, it’s worth taking a step back to a broader view of what “freedom of action” really entails.
I’ll start with a personal vignette and then move on to the larger issues at stake.
When I was a young boy, my parents bought us two parakeets. We kept them in their cage, well fed and taken care of. One day I felt sad for them because they didn’t have the opportunity to fly. So, I opened the cage door, gently took one out, and set it free. The bird was unsure what to do, but soon enough started flying around the room and then… flew straight into the window, cracked open its head, and died on the spot.
This taught me an important lesson: unfettered freedom is actually counterproductive! Indeed, that’s called anarchy. We generally understand the problem in most areas of life. Take sports: imagine a game where there are no rules, with players doing whatever they want to “score”. It wouldn’t be very interesting to play (or to watch). Or take music: what do most people want to hear – Mozart or some hyper-modern, “anything goes” composition? It is precisely the “limiting” structure of pre-20th-century classical music that renders the music of Mozart (or any of his composer compatriots) so compelling.
In social life as well, complete freedom doesn’t exist. One can’t walk anywhere, anytime; down the middle of the street or crossing at a red light is not acceptable. One can’t even say whatever one wants to: yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater (when there’s no fire) has no legal protection. We accept restrictions when there’s no “harm” to anyone in particular: even if all parties are willing, no more than two people can marry each other.
Why would this paradox hold true: that true freedom is only found within some structured or even “restrictive” framework? One way of looking at this is that society emulates Nature. The universe has “laws” of physics – there is no “cosmic chaos”, even if black holes and other outer space phenomena might seem that way. Given that human beings are part of that same natural world, why wouldn’t homo sapiens live along the same principle? Indeed, we don’t think twice about the fact that gravity stops us from flying – it’s just one of the numerous “limitations” on our freedom that we accept because… well, because that’s the way the world works.
In retrospect, as that young child I had two other choices: open my bedroom windows before releasing the parakeet – or lowering the shades.
The first option would have provided my bird with complete freedom – and then it would most probably have starved to death, not being trained to find food by itself. The second option would have restricted the parakeet’s freedom of movement even more by darkening the room – but that in itself would have forced it to be more careful and thus survive the experience!
The political world is no different. On the one hand, without restrictions on what citizens can do, we’d have fire-bombings and assassinations every time a citizen was dissatisfied with the government. We all comprehend that. But the other side of the coin – sometimes less understood – is that the governing authorities, too must be restricted. Otherwise, their complete “freedom” will lead to equally negative consequences. That’s because:
1) Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton’s famous 19th century dictum);
2) Without intellectual “pushback” (media, protests, opposition), leaders will do things without considering all the possible consequences;
3) Just as in all sports and games, someone has to act as a referee to ensure that the players adhere to the rules of the (legally set political) game; human society cannot flourish or even survive in an anarchic “anything goes” environment.
The major question, then, is how – and to what extent – should political leadership be restricted”? Different countries have differing approaches, but among democracies, they all agree that elected leaders should not be given a monopoly on political power. Some systems place most of their trust in the legislature – when there is a clear electoral demarcation between the supreme leader and legislative officials (the Presidential system where they are elected separately). Other countries with a parliamentary system (the Prime Minister emerges from the legislature’s elections) place greater counter-power in the judiciary. But whatever the system, no one branch of government “has it all.”
In short, placing the executive branch in a (“Constitutional”) cage actually guarantees that the entire political system will work better in the long run, even if seemingly less “efficient” due to obstacles placed on the government‘s power. Releasing those powers-that-be from such fetters will only guarantee the starving of democracy and weakening (if not outright death) of social vibrancy.
