Opinion Israel protests show that national identity and liberal values can coexist

Mehta is attempting to highlight a clear division between ethnocracy and democracy, whereas the Israeli mainstream elite is striving to establish a balanced agenda. This agenda aims to accommodate liberal forces concerned about potential changes in the regime’s system and conservative forces seeking to implement policy changes following their electoral victory.

Mukul Kesavan coined the term “generous majoritarianism” to describe the conservative leaders’ approach within the Congress. This ideology envisions India as a Hindu-majority nation that does not infringe on the rights of minorities. Similar to secular Zionism’s aspirations, it aims to strike a balance. However, Mehta believes this equilibrium may not be sustainable in the long run. Despite his reservations, it’s worth acknowledging that this model of “generous majoritarianism” effectively preserved Israel’s democratic essence for 75 years. It has given rise to a vibrant civil society, demonstrated by the massive protests witnessed in recent months.

The problem at hand is well-recognised, yet an evident solution remains elusive. Both Jews and Arabs in the State of Israel seem to harbour doubts about the existence of an Israeli nation. Unlike India’s cultural tapestry, Israel was founded as a nation-state for the Jewish people. Although equal treatment should be extended to non-Jewish citizens within this context, creating a sustainable framework necessitates acknowledging the reality that former British Palestine is home to two distinct peoples who lack the inclination to forge a shared national identity.

How can a country like Israel find a sustainable solution? Similarly, in India, where a growing number of Hindus identify themselves as a people rather than solely a religious group, what can be offered to bridge the divide? This is where a gap emerges between the perspectives of the academic elite and the broader societal forces. Most societies seek a democratic model that embraces the complexities of the nation’s diverse reality, anchored in the values of all its constituent groups.

Poland, Hungary, and other countries have undergone similar processes before Israel. Therefore, Mehta’s attempt to draw connections between Israeli processes and the complex situation in the West Bank seems to be driven more by political perspective than sociological evidence. More important than Mehta’s incorrect interpretation of the Israeli context is the crucial realisation that any model of democracy can falter without political flexibility and adaptability.
The demands set forth by the academic elite for a state to be recognised as truly democratic are often perceived as arrogant and privileged. This stance has contributed to the rise of right-wing movements. Mehta raises concerns about the future, warning of the potential dangers of strengthening ethnocracy in Israel, and possibly India.

Nevertheless, there is great doubt if the State of Israel would have been established in the first place according to his model. Democratic decision-making must consider those who probably prioritise national issues over purely liberal concerns. Striking a balance within democratic boundaries becomes crucial, while still maintaining essential red lines to safeguard against potential abuses, especially against minorities. An independent judicial authority plays a pivotal role in this context.

While both Mehta and the liberal protesters in Israel face accusations of being part of a privileged elite, there exists a fundamental distinction between them. The demonstrators rally against the erosion of the judiciary’s strength and firmly believe that the government lacks the authority to alter the nation’s regime. They concede that the government has the right to reshape the nation’s priorities — their central demands are around safeguarding judicial independence.

Unlike Mehta, who constructed a theoretical framework for liberal democracy and now demands its realisation, protesters in Israel are aware of the complexities and unique challenges faced by their country. They acknowledge the need for a democracy that considers multifaceted constraints, such as security, demographics, the relationship between Israel and the Jewish diaspora, and the ongoing control over an occupied territory with a hostile and disenfranchised population. Opposition protests in Israel may be perceived as a manifestation of liberal dissent against nationalist governance. However, these protests carry a noteworthy presence of IDF officers, Mossad, and Shin Bet officers, along with a multitude of Israeli flags adorned with distinct Jewish symbols, prominently displayed during demonstrations against Netanyahu’s government.

The protests serve as an example of how bolstering national sentiment can harmonise with liberal demands from the state. While it might seem contradictory on the surface, the convergence of these elements illustrates that a powerful sense of national identity can coexist with the call for liberal values and democratic principles.

The writer is a former coordinator of the Israel-India Parliamentary Friendship League and an Israel-based freelance columnist and journalist. Views are personal