Saving democracy by shielding judges

The world rarely sees leaders of one democracy laying down the law to other leaders about the need for independent courts. Yet in an extraordinary scene in Jerusalem on Monday, an official of the United States, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, warned the official of another country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, about a proposed measure that would allow parliament to override Supreme Court rulings by a slim majority.

In recent weeks, tens of thousands of Israelis have protested against the proposed changes. Mr. Blinken said Israeli-U.S. ties are rooted in shared principles of “equal administration of justice for all, the equal rights of minority groups, [and] the rule of law.” He praised President Isaac Herzog for trying to build a consensus “on the question of judicial reform.”

An erosion of democracy worldwide has led to similar cases of leaders defending what is a core safeguard of individual rights and civic equality – a separate judiciary tasked to enforce constitutional principles that protect people from the overreach of a majority.

The European Union has gone after two member states, Hungary and Poland, for trying to undermine the courts as co-equal branches of government. Britain seeks to salvage what remains of judicial independence in its former colony, Hong Kong, as China imposes authoritarian rule in the territory. India’s ruling party has been accused by the opposition of trying to “capture” the judiciary in an attempt to control the nomination of judges.

Last year, the American Bar Association set up a task force to train people on how judicial independence protects individual rights and government institutions. In December, the ABA issued a “tool kit” to help people around the globe identify trends in threats to judicial independence.

“When individuals can expect their disputes to be resolved impartially and free from outside influence, this fosters trust within the judicial system – which is not possible if judges can be captured by the state or special interest groups,” states the ABA.

Perhaps the world’s most embattled and heroic defender of judicial independence is Judge Tarek Bitar in Lebanon, a fragile Mideast state nearing political and economic collapse.

He was tasked two years ago with probing official negligence in the 2020 blast of ammonium nitrate at the Port of Beirut that killed more than 200 people and destroyed entire neighborhoods. His investigation has been thwarted by a political elite – especially the powerful Iran-backed Shiite group Hezbollah – that fears being found complicit in the use of the chemical for bomb-making and in one of the largest nonnuclear explosions in history.

Suhail Abboud, head of Lebanon’s Supreme Judicial Council, said Lebanon cannot have an independent judiciary without completing the investigation.

Judge Bitar, widely known for his integrity and political neutrality, remains popular among Lebanese, according to a 2021 Gallup Poll. “My only concern is to satisfy God and my conscience, and to convince the victims and their families that what I do serves justice,” he said of the probe. He and his family live under armed guard.

Last week, he charged eight people in the investigation, including the chief public prosecutor, security chief, and a former prime minister. Also, nearly a third of Lebanese lawmakers backed his actions while a large group of judges condemned attempts to thwart the investigation.

Judge Bitar “symbolizes hope that justice may one day be served in a country where impunity has long been the norm,” stated a Reuters story. Lebanon’s future may depend on a little-appreciated aspect of democracy: judicial independence. It has joined a list of other places where courts are under siege – yet where people are embracing the principle of equality before law.