Netanyahu’s troubles and the rule of law

Rex van Schalkwyk is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa, chair of the FMF’s Board, and chair of the FMF’s Rule of Law Project. He is the author of three books. The first is a novel. The second, One Miracle is not Enough (1998), deals with the failures then already evident in the South African democracy. The third, Panic for Democracy (2009), deals with the equivalent failures evident for many years in the democracy of the United States. 

For interviews:

The views expressed in the article are the author's and not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author.

The FMF is an independent, non-profit, public benefit organisation, created in 1975 by pro-free market business and civil society national bodies to work for
a non-racial, free and prosperous South Africa.
As a policy organisation it promotes sound economic policies and the principles
of good law. As a think tank it seeks and puts forward solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems: unemployment, poverty, growth, education, health care, electricity supply, and more. The FMF was instrumental in the post-apartheid negotiations and directly influenced the Constitutional Commission to include the property
rights clause: a critical cornerstone of economic freedom.

+27 11 884 0270
PO Box 4056, Cramerview 2060

This article was first published by Business Day on 13 April 2023

Netanyahu’s troubles and the rule of law

Benjamin Netanyahu, like Silvio Berlusconi before him, seeks to make law, “because he can”, to overcome the criminal charges against him. There are two essential ingredients to the proposed law, which involve amendments to the legal order, and which has brought the crowds onto the streets.
The first is a proposal to deprive the Supreme Court of the right to review an act of parliament in what is called the Basic Law, and the second involves a change in the method of selection of Supreme Court justices, giving the greater authority to the elected politicians. These are fundamental violations of the rule of law; they violate the principle of the separation of powers and, more fundamentally, they have the effect of usurping the authority of the court.
With the well-informed Israeli population, it was not necessary to resort to the courts to undo this authoritarianism; the population did it for themselves. They could see through the ruse: the measures were designed to provide Netanyahu with an indemnity against criminal prosecution.  Spontaneously and en masse, they took to the streets in a succession of protests in a fine example of democracy in action: they informed Netanyahu that it was they, and not he, whose views were to be heeded. The defence minister has been fired for his opposition to the proposed measures, but for now, the process has been checked.
There is an eerie parallel between this episode and the scandalous processes adopted by the South African Nationalist government, to remove the Coloured voters from the voters roll. In that case, however, the voters did not take to the streets, and it was left to the courts to right the wrongs that had been wrought.
The act of union of 1910, whereby the Union of South Africa was created out of the two former Boer Republics, as well as the colonies of the Cape and Natal, incorporated constitutional guarantees in respect of the coloured voters of the Cape. These included the existing right of the coloured voters of that province who, upon the basis of a qualified franchise on a common voters roll, would continue to exercise that right within the union.
When the Nationalists came to power in South Africa in 1948, they let it be known that it was their intention to deprive the coloured voters of their entrenched right to vote. However, they had a problem: their objective could only be lawfully accomplished by means of a two thirds majority vote of both houses of parliament, in a joint sitting. Such a majority was not within reach.

In their search for a solution it was perceived, among other things, that, although the South Africa Act (a law of the British Parliament which created the union) contained the entrenched clause, a subsequent Act, the Statute of Westminster, had given the South African parliament the power to repeal British law. This principle of parliamentary sovereignty emboldened the government to pass, by a simple majority, the Separate Representation of Voters Act, which deprived the coloured voters of their existing right, and substituted it with the right to elect four whites to act as their parliamentary representatives.
The validity of this Act was challenged in the courts, with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court unanimously upholding the challenge.
Not to be outdone the government, which had publicly resolved not to abide the court’s judgment, came up with its solution. The government was to create a High Court of Parliament, consisting of sitting parliamentarians, with the authority to overturn any judgment of the Appellate Division which had the effect of invalidating an act of parliament. This “High Court” would comprise a majority of Nationalist Party members, and its majority decision would be binding.
The validity of the High Court of Parliament Act was challenged before the Appellate Division and was held, once again unanimously, to be invalid: Only a court of law had the authority to adjudicate upon the lawfulness of an entrenched section of the constitution, and the “High Court of Parliament” was not a court of law.
Still, the government had not exhausted its resourcefulness. The formula for the election/nomination of senators created an opportunity of a different kind: the government would use this formula to pack the senate with its supporters to create the required majority. And, just to ensure the outcome, the government would use its prerogative in the appointment of judges to the Appellate Division to appoint judges of the right pedigree.
With its contrived two thirds majority, the government passed the South Africa Act Amendment Act of 1956, which validated the earlier Separate Representation of Voters Act.
This process was again challenged before the same court, differently constituted this time and, unsurprisingly, the result on this occasion favoured the government. However, there was one surprise; although the novice judges had voted as expected, the others became inconstant. Only Judge Oliver Schreiner, to his great credit, saw the entire process for the charade that it undoubtedly was.
There is a lesson for Prime Minister Netanyahu in this constitutional drama. His proposals have not yet reached beyond the streets of Tel Aviv. With all the gerrymandering at his disposal he might yet encounter a court as firmly principled and resolute as was Judge Oliver Schreiner.
James Madison’s injunction, recorded in the Federalist Papers, that government required the ability “to control itself’ was perhaps a forlorn hope. The better solution is that government must be constantly reminded that it is subject to the discipline of the Rule of Law, in the manner of the estimable Judge Schreiner.

Help FMF promote the rule of law, personal liberty, and economic freedom become an individual member / donor HERE ... become a corporate member / donor HERE