On the Gap Between Substance and Process in Democracy and Law, in Light of the Regime Change and the Protest Movement of 2023.

A short intro - On Gap Between Substance & Process

Discussion* surrounding the regime change and the protest is not purely legal, because engaging solely with strictly legal dimension is tantamount to agreeing that procedure (process) prevails over content (substance). Focusing exclusively on process renders the protest redundant and grants approval and legitimization for the regime change to proceed into a technical discussion concerned with details rather than essence.
The implication is collapse of the democratic system of governance and, subsequently, of the State of Israel.

The confrontation between procedure and substance - and which of the two constitutes an indicator of the existence of democracy has long stood at the core of political science, and originates in the confusion between legitimacy (constitutionality - procedure and process; legitimate) and legitimization (authorization / endorsement - substance; Legitimization: process of making legal).

Where legitimacy is derived from the letter of the law, any discussion of it is confined to the technical aspect of the process (procedure). Legitimization, by contrast, is derived from the substance of the process and from whether public involvement grants it social and normative authorization. Moreover, without legitimization at the level of the regime - which is the clear and immediate outcome of the judicial overhaul - the state will collapse, losing the unifying ethos that defines it as sovereign over its territory.