Our democracy has one house and no oversight other than judiciary. Once you handicap judiciary the current government can do literally anything.
E.g. in the US the president appoints the judges but the senate has to confirm. The congress holds the money and war declaration. We don't have any of that separation so one crazy party (which we have right now) can literally do anything with no oversight.
So why would a democratic government insist on passing laws that cost it its chance to win the election and are going to be overturned by the next government, and risk a heavily antagonistic policy against the current coalition's interests, by the next likely govermnent?
In a democratic framework it makes no sense. The only way it could make sense is if the current coalition is planning to break the democratic system, and engineer unfair elections, and unfair political system, like in Turkey and Hungary. And all the coalition's rethoric and other actions hint in this way like a giant flashing neon sign the size of a skyscrapper.
So as pretty as your theory may sound this is a completely different scenario.
- supreme court been standing in the way of multiple laws that tried to free from army yeshiva students because it violates principle of equality
- supreme court tends to stand in a way of mid/low level corruption in form of appointing to different professional positions in ministries and state owned companies people without any qualification (the only qualifications been relatives or "mandate harvesters")
- judicial advisors to government/ministries who can prevent doing illegal/stupid things
religious parties want to free their students from conscription. for coalition to stay in place they need votes of religious parties. right in general been unhappy with a supreme court for many years and for past 15 years or so they claimed that it doesn't represent population.
right now stars got aligned and they decided to legalize laws in order to take some power from supreme court / select their own judges in order to advance their agenda.
it's as simple as that.
yes, it may lead to unfair elections/etc, but it's just immediate interests of involved parties
Religion is older than democracy and will likely outlive it
Hard to say. I think religious indoctrination is harder to maintain over time in the face of technology. Eventually it will run out of shadow and won’t have enough compelling answers for life’s questions.
I'd be interested in learning about any examples. I don't know enough about global politics to even hazard a guess
https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-judicia...
> The UK is traditionally thought to have one such system, as under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty the UK Parliament is the supreme source of authority: whatever the democratically elected representatives decide upon is law, and if expressed in an Act of Parliament cannot be overturned by the courts.
And maybe more broadly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty. But it seems like it's sort of on the way out everywhere.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-othe...
Royal Assent
When a Bill has been approved by a majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords it is formally agreed to by the Crown. This is known as the Royal Assent. This turns a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the UK.
[1] https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2013-09-17/uni...).)
true but there aren't a lot of functioning democracies where those reforms are being pursued by a leader who had to already abdicate his position as PM after being indicted for bribery and fraud, while also still being subject to more trials.
If someone like that starts to question the autonomy of the judiciary democracy isn't the word I'd pick for it. Context does matter
The problem these startups have is that the government has been democratically elected, but the demographics are swinging religious populists into increasingly permanent control.
That's democratic! But it's the consequence of ultraconservatives having 12 children when liberals have 2. Let's use a more precise term for what they don't like.