Questions Being Asked: Basic Laws
-
-
-
-
-
Why Do They Exist and What Do They Do?
INTRODUCTION: BASIC LAWS
Note to educator: These introductory conversations are designed to help learners understand why Israel has Basic Laws, as well as the breadth and scope of their authority.
Begin by asking learners to create a set of five new rules for your educational space. The rules should make everyone feel seen, heard, protected, and valued. Individual learners propose new “legislation” to the group, which is then voted on. In order for legislation to be written into law, it must receive a supermajority of 90% approval. If this voting goes “too smoothly,” you might reopen approved rules for amendments. To amend a rule, a proposed alteration must receive another vote of 75% approval. The activity is complete once five rules are approved (or the task proves impossible).
Note to educator: Examples of potential rules might be: “All students must speak only for themselves, not for others” or “Fidget toys are permitted only if they contribute to focus, not detract from it.”
Discussion questions:
- What was challenging about this process?
- Why place the bar so high for approving new laws and amendments?
Note to educator: Such a high standard lends a sense of legitimacy to the limitations that rules impose and reflects a broad consensus.
Explanation and contemporary context:
The rules in this activity are meant to represent Basic Laws, the purpose of which is to define the core responsibilities of state institutions and officials, outline the civil rights and liberties of citizens, and encapsulate the values and ethos of a country—similar to a constitution. For a full explanation, see the FAQ: Basic Laws. Unlike other countries where Basic Laws are used, Basic Laws in Israel are passed by a regular parliamentary majority. That majority could be a 1-0 vote! No system is perfect, but Israel’s Basic Laws are particularly susceptible to dramatic changes because of this system, especially during times of political polarization. Watch this video to put the unusual nature of Israel’s Basic Laws into perspective.
Concluding discussion:
- When it comes to Basic Laws, which voting standard do you think is better for democracy: supermajorities or regular majorities?
- What can be done to lessen or resolve the issues that accompany both types of voting?
- What role, if any, do you think the Supreme Court, Israel’s judicial branch, should play in the legislative process?
SHOULD ISRAEL HAVE A CONSTITUTION?
Note to educator: This activity takes learners back to 1948, when Israel declared its independence without ratifying a constitution. The arguments for and against having a constitution are provided for learners’ scrutiny and debate.
OPENING ACTIVITY
Divide learners into two camps: pro- and anti-constitution. The groups will receive basic background and historical information, from which they will develop a cohesive argument for or against writing a constitution. Once they have prepared, each group will present its case, and you, the educator, will preside over the proceedings. In addition to the presentations, you can allow rebuttals and closing arguments before delivering your final verdict.
Note to educator: If you would like to provide your learners with additional, historical background, this article explores the origins of why Israel does not have a constitution.
DEBATE
Pro-Constitution Brief:
- The pro-constitution camp argued that UN Resolution 181, the Partition Plan for Palestine, required a constitution to be written. Having accepted the Resolution, the nascent Jewish state should abide by its requirements.
- Without a constitution, minorities living in either of the two states mandated by Resolution 181 would lack sufficient protections.
- A constitution would be a reminder that everyone, including those in power, is subject to the rule of law.
- Having a constitution would lay the foundation for working toward a cohesive national identity, a crucial element in any society.
Anti-Constitution Brief:
- The anti-constitution camp was led by Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.
- Ben-Gurion argued that a constitution was an old idea created to serve elites and codify inequalities, and believed that the dynamic and diverse nature of Israel, especially in its early years, was antithetical to the restrictive character of a standard constitution.
- Religious parties opposed a constitution because the Jewish people already have a “constitution”: the Torah.
- There was also a war going on! Why bother with a constitution when the fate of the Jewish state was on the line?
CONSTITUTION BY CONSENSUS
Note to educator: In this activity, learners engage actively with the complexities of writing an Israeli constitution. Learners will encounter the diversity of Israeli politics and society and grapple with the challenges of contemporary Israeli political processes. As written here, the activity takes about one hour.
OPENING ACTIVITY
- This activity uses excerpts from the Israel Democracy Institute’s “Constitution by Consensus,” a proposed draft for a constitution written under the leadership of Meir Shamgar, who was Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court from 1983 to 1995.
- Begin by reminding or explaining that, in addition to its legislative powers, the Knesset has constitutional responsibilities, namely the task of writing a formal, completed constitution. In 1950, the Knesset decided to write the Constitution in chapters, known as Basic Laws (see this short explanation for more details on the original decision). Today, we will assume the roles of different political groups in order to complete the process.
- Divide into four groups, each representing a different political ideology or identity group within Israeli society and the Knesset. We’ve provided briefings for four suggested groups—ultra-Orthodox Jews/Haredim, secular liberal Israelis, Arab citizens of Israel, and a conservative national-religious group. It is important to note that Israeli society, like any society, is composed of many more than four groups (and that the boundaries between them are seldom so neatly defined). You may want to outline a different set of groups for your learners to explore.
Note to educator: Like any society, the Israeli public cannot be adequately represented by four groups. Explain to your learners that this activity necessarily presents broad general sectors of society; make clear that no group is an ideological monolith. The goal is for learners to consider different perspectives and priorities, recognizing that many other voices are not included.
- Each group should read “Part One: Principles” (pp.113-115) of the “Constitution by Consensus.” In addition, each group should read about their “priorities” here.
- Task each group with drafting and proposing amendments to this section of the would-be constitution. Each group can propose up to three amendments, subtractions, or additions. In the end, the groups will negotiate a maximum of six total changes to the proposal that must be approved by a vote of at least 3-1. Each group must try to include as many of their priorities while preventing the inclusion of anything that contradicts their priorities.
Note to educator: The goal of this activity is not necessarily to reach a consensus and approve a constitution, but rather to demonstrate how complicated and controversial the process is today—and always has been. Even if the groups do manage to agree on a proposal, remind learners that they worked on only three pages of the 328-page proposal. If the groups are struggling to agree on a draft, ask:
- What about the process worked or did not work? What skills might have been helpful in convincing the other groups? Why is gaining a majority or creating consensus so difficult?
CLOSING DISCUSSION
- Was this process difficult? Why or why not?
- What new insights or understandings do you have about Israel’s lack of a constitution?
- What voices were not included in this exercise?
