Populism or Statesmanship? The Battle Over the Likud's Character

The Likud primary results revealed a near tie between the 'statehood right' and the populist right, and the party has not decided between its two political cultures. The article places this struggle within a global process, focuses on the judicial system, and quotes Prof. Noam Gidron. The author argues that populism can be a democratic response to elites but warns against anti-democratic populism.

This opinion piece analyzes the Likud primary results, presenting them as revealing a 'near political tie' between two factions: the 'statehood right' and the populist right. The author argues that the Likud has not decided between its two political cultures. He situates the struggle within a global process in which working classes have moved rightward, citing examples such as 'Alternative for Germany', 'Reform UK', and the MAGA movement. In Israel, the struggle centers on the judicial system; the author mentions the January 2024 ruling on the reasonableness standard, in which the court for the first time annulled an amendment to a Basic Law, describing this as a 'regime change from democracy to juristocracy'. He notes that figures of the old 'statehood right' such as Dan Meridor and Tzipi Livni have lost their place in the Likud. The author quotes Prof. Noam Gidron, who described the Likud as a party that has become populist to an exceptional degree, but argues that what is described as 'populism' can be seen as a democratic backlash by a public that has lost trust in elites. He warns against anti-democratic populism and anti-democratic elitism, concluding that the struggle is between a statesmanship approach emphasizing trust in institutions and a populist approach emphasizing popular sovereignty.