Information
AI Chat

A. Barak Begin and the Rule of Law in Government

Rule of law in Constitutional law in Government. Equips student with f...

Course

Constitutional law (111)

130 Documents

Students shared 130 documents in this course

University

Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration

Academic year: 2014/2015

Uploaded by:

Syelle Dyelle

Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration

0followers

13Uploads

15upvotes

Recommended for you

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Preview text

Begin and the Rule of Law

Author(s): Aharon Barak

Source: Israel Studies, Fall, 2005, Vol. 10, No. 3, The Right in Israel (Fall, 2005), pp. 1-

Published by: Indiana University Press

Stable URL: jstor/stable/

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

about.jstor/terms

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Israel Studies

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Aharon Barak*

Begin and the Rule of Law'

I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE rule of the law and the supremacy of

the constitution, analyze these terms, and look at their contribution to

the government's democratic character I do so today, five years after

the demise of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Rule of law character-

ized his social outlook. Supremacy of the constitution-or as he termed

it "supremacy of the law"-is taken from his writings. Supremacy of the

constitution (law) expressed his worldview. I was the government's legal

advisor when he was elected prime minister, and worked alongside him. I brought him the legal rulings on domestic social matters and foreign policy issues. In all of these matters, I saw the reflection of a leader in whose blood flowed the rule of law and whose soul was governed by the supremacy of

the law. Not once did he dispute the consequence demanded of him by

the law. On occasion he may have been displeased with the court's verdict on an issue close to his heart, but he always complied. "There are judges in Jerusalem"-he would say, and it reverberated throughout the state. I will begin with the principle of the rule of law and conclude with the supremacy of the constitution. My thesis is simple: in a democratic state the principle of rule of law must be upheld and, to achieve this, the supremacy of the constitution must be ensured.

THE RULE OF LAW

I. COMPLEXITY OF THE TERM

The rule of law-or more correctly: the rule of justice-is a complex, multi-

meaning, ambiguous term. Professor Amnon Rubenstein has correctly

noted that, "few terms used so frequently, are so little understood, as the rule of law."3 Everyone agrees on its essence. But the further we move away from its core, the hazier the picture becomes. Differences in terminology also contribute to this. The English speak of the Rule ofLaw, an expression

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 3

No one is exempt from this obligation. We must pay taxes honestly, abide by the building code, and obey traffic laws. Parallel with the rights of man are the obligations of man. We must fulfill our obligations. Everyone must obey the precepts of the law. A person must not violate the law, even if the point in question runs counter to his worldview. Ideological transgression

is the same as criminal transgression, and sometimes even more serious.

This recalls Socrates' dilemma and his decision not to escape from prison. He respected the law even if the law did not respect him. He stressed that we derive benefits from the laws, and we would be displaying ingratitude

not to comply with them when they do not suit us. He pointed to social

agreement as the source of obedience to the law. The law must be obeyed

because we have agreed to obey it. He explained that the law had to be

obeyed because this is the only way to preserve the social framework that

guarantees the individual's happiness. This is the only way to maintain

social equity among the members of society.

(c) The Rule of Law and the State

The main significance of the (formal) rule of law relates to the state. The state must conduct its activities within the limitations of the law. The state

was established by the law. It has no existence without the law. Therefore, the state must act according to the law. It must be a law-abiding state. In seventeenth-century England the king was the personification of the state. The rule of law was expressed in the famous maxim of Justice Cook: "The

king is not subordinate to man. He is subordinate to God and the Law"

(Quod rex non debet sub homine, edsub deo et lege). The state operates by means of official institutions. Each of the gov- ernment's agencies is subordinate to the law. This is government by the rule of law. The president symbolizes the nation's sovereignty. He stands at the head of the state. He is subordinate to the law. Although the law grants him immunity, it does not exonerate him from upholding the law.

The rule of law is directed to the legislative authority. According

to Justice Zilberg-this is "rule of law by the legislator."s An excellent

example of this is found in the Talmud's fable ofAkhnai's oven where God

himself-who gave the Torah-is subordinate to man's interpretation of it.

The rule of law principle means that the laws of the conventional legislator must fit the constitution: "When a given adjudicative system has a constitu- tion, the 'rule of law' requires the preservation of the rule of constitution." This is rule of law by the legislator. Even in the absence of constitutional limitations the legislator is obligated to obey the laws. True, the legislator

makes the law and is allowed to change it, but as long as the law has not

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

4 * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

been changed, the legislator is subordinate to the fruit of his making: ". a king who took a yard or field from one of his subject[s] not according to

a law that he made, is stealing."'o The king himself is subordinate to the

regulation that he decreed. When the Knesset (Israeli parliament) operates as a sub-legislator, it must respect the limitations that it placed on itself in

the main legislation. When the Knesset makes decisions that are not laws

or ordinances, it must ascertain that these decisions do not negate its own laws. Also, when a verdict is given on a Knesset matter, the Knesset must respect it. Former Chief Justice Shamgar averred:

Whoever hands down a verdict must obey it in letter and spirit. The obliga- tion comes from the law, and is an expression of the necessity to organize the social life according to basic norms that permit the existence of an organized framework in which the rule of law dominates ... It is not the status of the court that is being tested here, it is the Knesset's honor. It is inconceivable that the chairman of the Knesset's obligation to the court, which has the authority of adjudication, will not be respected or will be twisted for tactical purposes. The house of legislature's status is liable to be damaged if a faulty explanation develops that its obligation to abide by the judgment is different from that of any other authority or individual in the state."

The rule of law in its formal sense is directed toward the judicial

authority. This is rule of law by the judge. "On matters of adjudication

there is no [higher] authority over whoever has the authority to adjudicate, other than the authority of the law."12 The authority of the law governs the judge. Like everyone else, the judge too is forbidden to violate the law. Therefore the judge is bound, in his interpretation, to the rules of inter-

pretation. "The power to interpret laws"-wrote Justice Agranat-"that is

given to the judge, is a limited and restricted power, and there are borders

and areas that he is forbidden to pass."'3 The judge must act objectively.

His subjective values and personal considerations must not be reflected,

only the objective sense of the law [can be stated]. Justice Zilberg correctly noted:

If the judge is allowed to choose his personal 'preference' over the 'preference' of the legislator, then the neutrality, impartiality, and non-partisanship of the state's judges will no longer exist and the law will become a 'function' of the judge. There is only one guarantee to sanitize the judge's adjudication: his total surrender to the express will of the law.

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

6 * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

independence of the individual judge, the judiciary as an organization

should be institutionally independent.

(d) The Rule of Law and Executive Authority

The main significance of the rule of law principle is its supremacy over

executive authority. This is the principle of governmental or administrative legality. The executive authority has no powers except for those granted to it by the law: "In a state in which the Law rules ... the Law determines the

government's manner of conduct, the Law and not a particular coalition

agreement."'6 The executive authority must act within the boundaries of

the laws that established it and gave it the breath of life. This is how the difference between the individual and government is expressed. The indi-

vidual is granted freedom unless legally denied. The government has no

power unless legally granted it. Hence the executive authority is obligated

to abide by the law: "Its agencies have no rights, powers, or immunities

unless granted them by the law. Hence a government official, as such, has no extra rights, powers, or immunities than any other person in the state."' The following passage is by Professor Dicey, the spiritual father of the rule of law principle in England: "With us every official, from the Prime Min- ister down to a constable or tax-collector, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen."

Every official must respect the law-in peaceful periods as well as in

times of crisis. "When the canons roar, the muses are silent. When the

canons roar, rule of law must be maintained. Society's strength lies in its ability to face its enemies with the awareness that the values it is fighting for are worth defending. Rule of law is one of these values."" Indeed, with- out law there is no security. The rule of law is a factor in national security.

The security services are the products of the law. They must respect the

law. Security considerations may sometimes influence the determination

of the substance of the law, but what determines this substance obligates

the (formal) rule of law to uphold the law, without employing security

consideration as a justification for violating the law. Justice Haim Cohen

emphasized this point:

In a state in which the law prevails, the rights of man will not be denied, whether he is the most dangerous criminal or despicable traitor, unless in accordance with the law... The Knesset is the legislative authority, and grants authorization to its adjudicators, if it so wishes, to judge a man accord- ing to his behavior and the results of his actions. In the absence of such authorization by the legislator, neither reason, exigency, love of homeland,

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 7

nor any other consideration-can justify his taking the law into his own hands and denying another person his rights.

Indeed, the government is subordinate to the law. No man or govern-

ment body is above the law "King Yanai"-said Simon ben Shatach-

"stand on your feet and be judged. You are not standing before us, but

him before Whom you will always stand."22 The executive authority and

all its branches are subordinate to the law. Every public figure-whether

in the central or municipal government-must realize that the law is as

incumbent upon him as it is upon every citizen. The government authority is not permitted to violate the law. "It is forbidden for any man to violate the law. All the more so a public figure that should be setting an example for the entire public. Violation of the law by a public figure undermines the public's trust in public authorities." Justice Olshen ruled on this issue in the first year of the state when Israel was fighting for its survival in the War of Independence: "The author- ities are subordinate to the law just as every citizen in the state is. The rule of law is one of the state's strongest foundations. It would be a serious blow to both the public and the state if the authorities wield the power granted by the legislator, even temporarily, while totally disregarding the legislator's limitations on the manner of wielding this power."

In another case, decided in 1961, President Olshen expounded:

The Law exists not only for the citizen. It exists for the authorities too. More- over, every government whose duty is to see that the citizen obeys the Law must itself first of all serve as an example of obedience to the Law. The Law was created by the legislator for the state to abide by, and the government cannot demand a special status for itself as though it is above the Law. This is one of the basic principles of the 'rule of law'.

(e) The Rule of Law and Preservation of the Law

The rule of law in its formal sense means the supremacy of the law. The

(formal) rule of law will remain a dead letter if institutional norms are not

determined whose purpose is to realize this principle. According to Chief

Justice Shamgar:

The rule of law has not been created ex nihilo and is not an abstraction. It must be a tangible daily expression of obligatory normative arrangements, their practical implementation vis-i-vis each citizen in realizing basic free- doms, safeguarding equality, and creating a general atmosphere of trust and security.

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 9

independence is guaranteed in Israel: "Regarding adjudication there is no

authority above the person who has been given adjudicative prerogative

other than the authority of the law." Israel does not have an independent judiciary authority. Adjudicative instances are part of the executive author- ity and are dominated by it. This is a serious flaw in Israel's constitutional legal framework and a serious violation of the rule of law principle. The main bodies responsible for enforcing the law are the police and legal authorities. For the rule of law to function properly, the police and

prosecution must act objectively. A police officer has no authority other

than the authority of the law. The police are a civil body, not a political

one. They are not the government's police force; they are the state's police force. They must act efficiently and justly. They are not required to look for incriminating material; they are required to look for the truth. State

prosecution-headed by the attorney general-is the main authority for

enforcing the law. It too has to act objectively and with independent judg- ment. Hence, it is our view that the attorney general is not a political figure, but a civil servant. He is not subordinate to the political authorities, even

though he is appointed by them. His independence must be protected.

The prosecution of the law requires the practical implementation of

sanctions. It calls for a court with the authority to judge legal violations. Thus, any attempt to curtail the courts' authority-whether legislatively or by judicial self-restraint-injures the rule of law. "In the absence of judicial criticism, the rule of law is not being upheld ... The effective existence of the Law requires the maintenance of effective judicial criticism."'29 Hence, there is judicial criticism of the law's legality. Hence, there is judicial criti-

cism, even if partial, of the lawfulness of the Knesset's decisions. Hence,

there is judicial criticism of the legality of public administration. Further- more, it is not enough that a judicial institution has authoritative powers if it closes the door to those who come to complain about the violation of the law. Hence, the view that a person can turn to the highest court of justice and ask for its intervention, even if personal interest has not been hurt and the complaint refers to a serious breech in the rule of law. "Where the court does not intervene, the rule of law is impaired. A government that knows it will not come under judicial criticism, is a government unlikely to enforce the law and one that will probably cause its violation."30 Thus, the court's role is to guarantee that the rule of law principle is carried out in practice. A closed door in the face of a plaintiff, who comes without personal interest to warn of illegal government activity, impairs the dominance of the law. This

is a case of "no judge and no law." The ability to petition the court is the

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

IO * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

cornerstone of the rule of law. Therefore, "in order to guarantee the court's function as a guarantor of the rule of law in the government, it [the court]

must adopt a "generous" attitude-not a formalistic or pedantic one."

At the basis of implementation of the law, and at the basis of rule of law, lies the principle that the enforcement of the law-whatever its sub- stance-will be done equitably. This is an integral part of the formal rule of law, though it is also necessary because of the broader (jurisprudential and essential) aspects of the rule of law. According to Chief Justice Shamgar:

The fulfillment of rights, in practice, is expressed by honoring them through their practical realization, equally and without unaccepted bias. The value and strength of the law granting rights lie in the fact that they are not merely in the realm of abstract ideas, befitting the spirit of the law, and objective, but that according to the letter [of the law] they are tangible and accessible, and are enforced according to standards of equality among equals, with no deviation [from this principle] due to improper reasons... that in cases of infringement upon the rights each injured party will gain equal and identical treatment [emphasis in original].

Therefore, bias in carrying out the law spells the ruin of the rule of

law33 Therefore the authorities must carry out the law equally--an equal

attitude among equals, and a different attitude for different people.

The rule of law does not exist if it differentiates among equals ... When we investigate one person and not another of equal status, the principle of the rule of law is impaired; when we pardon one and not someone of equal status, the principle of the rule of law is impaired; when we grant one person the full possibility to defend himself and furnish his version and deny this to someone of equal status, the rule of law principle is impaired.

Justice Michael Cheshin has justifiably stated that, "the rule of law

principle reflects the principle of legality," and he adds that "it reflects the need for enforcing the law equitably and without bias according to known and established rules, without arbitrariness and accident." 2. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ASPECT

(a) General

The rule of law in its formal sense is a necessary condition for understand-

ing the rule of law. But it is not a sufficient condition. Take a law that

determines that regulations based on it are effective even if they have not

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

12 * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

the judicial authority, supervisory authority for adjudication, and acces-

sibility to the court-have been already been discussed in the analysis of

the formal rule of law. Indeed, the borderlines between the different aspects of the rule of law overlap, and certain subjects can be classified either this way or that. A number of additional matters are perceived as integral parts of the rule of law in its jurisprudential sense.

(b) Publication and Clarity of the Law

Of prime importance is the publication of the law. The rule of law requires

publication of the law before it goes into force. A person-considered

knowledgeable of the law-must be able to conduct himself according to

the law: "It is forbidden to obey a law if the law is obscure.""40 Justice Haim Cohen correctly noted that,

Legislation that is made obscure and registered in hidden archives, is one of the signs of a totalitarian regime, and does not correspond with the rule of law. The principle of publishing legislation lies at the heart of the rule of law ... since the law... according to its definition is supposed to be known in advance. And the law will not be given and announced ahead of time as a law designed for the public unless the law has been published for the public. Thus, a person is forewarned of the norms of conduct that he is obligated to abide by, and in this way can conduct himself according to those norms that have been decided on and brought to his knowledge in advance.

Secret-legislature detracts from the foundation of the rule of law.

person must be able to understand the law by reading it and-with pro-

fessional help-understand what is forbidden and permitted. Indeed, the

law needs to be worded in such a way that whoever reads it knows what

is permitted and forbidden. This does not correspond with the rule of law

in determining the nature of a crime-as we define it in the criminal law

(Section 198)-as committing "an act liable to result in a public infringe-

ment." A ruling such as this is neither certain nor clear. The rule of law

(in its jurisprudential sense) demands its annulment. Hence, this is also

forbidden retroactively, or retrospectively, especially in the criminal sphere.

Furthermore, the law has to be stable. It is forbidden to introduce new

changes whimsically. The rule of law calls for a certain degree of stability in

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 13

the legislative system. This is the only way that proper social arrangements can be maintained. And finally, contradictory legislation must be avoided, otherwise how can a person conduct himself properly? Naturally, the need for clarity of the law is only relative. Every text requires interpretation. A text is comprehensible only after it has been interpreted. Sometimes inter- pretation is a simple matter, other times a complicated one. Clarity requires that the law is comprehensible after interpretation.

THE RULE OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Against this background we may ask whether the rule of law in its juris- prudential sense negates government considerations. The rule of law con- cept frequently appears as the antithesis of the rule of man. This view is enshrined in the writing of Locke43 and has influenced the constitutional

perspective in England. The English perceive the rule of law that we are

discussing as the rule of law and not the rule of man. In Israel too this

expression holds sway. According to Justice Shamgar:

The main expression of the rule of law is that it is not the rule of men-with their unlimited decisions, considerations, and aspirations-but that it rests on the directives of stable norms that are equal for everyone and that obligate everyone identically.

In similar spirit Justice Michael Cheshin noted:

We are filled with praise for the principle of the rule of law, and by praising it we wish to posit the rule of law vis-h-vis the rule of man. The Law-not man-will control us ... The rule of man is basically tyranny ... This is the rule of man-while facing it stands the rule of law. Furthermore, a law is the product of man's spirit, and as such-as different from man-by its very definition it should be given and known in advance."

Hence, the view that Justice Olshen stated in the early 1950s:

According to the 'rule of law' principle, the legislator must legally determine and specify the cases in which licenses may be granted or refused, in such a manner that the executive authority will be able to implement the law's rulings in practice. Thus, the job of legislation must be done in such a way that the citizen can find in the body of the law the answer to the question of what is forbidden and what permitted, and will not be dependent on this matter on the opinion of the executive authority.

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 15

restrain governmental opinion. Indeed, the war against the imperiousness of administrative opinions is not for the annulment of such opinion, but for determining a framework for its proper implementation. Therefore the

rules of administrative law-the basic and adjudicative ones-were devel-

oped by the high court of justice and determine that a religious doctrine

will be used in governmental opinion. The opinion must be made in such

a way that it takes into consideration all the relevant factors. Thus, it must not be arbitrary; it must be made without bias; it must be made reasonably, that is, after carefully weighing the relevant considerations; it must not be tainted by a conflict of interests; it must listen to the injured party; it must explain every decision, and it must carry out a precise, fair, and systematic examination50 of the factual infrastructure before giving an opinion. The

more the range of governmental opinion increases the more these guide-

lines must be expanded and supplemented. This has taken place recently,

as we have learned-following European law-of (proportional) measur-

ability as another consideration for guiding administrative authority. Third, effective adjudicative criticism of the implementation of admin-

istrative opinion must be guaranteed. True, the court does not have to

replace the government's opinion with its own opinions; the court does

not have to ask itself how it would decide a particular case if it had the

government's opinion. Adjudicative criticism is one of legality-not of

reason or efficiency. But in the areas of legal criticism, the court has to insist that the administrative authority remains within the realm of consideration given to it. And the more that administrative decision infringes upon the rights of the individual, the more vigorous the adjudicative criticism has to be. The court has to see itself as the defender of the rights of man and protector of the borderlines of administrative consideration.

THE ESSENTIAL ASPECT

(a) General

The rule of law in its jurisprudential aspect enhances the concept of the

rule of law. Nevertheless, there is nothing in it-together with the formal aspect-to illustrate the full richness of this term. If the rule of law exists

only in its formal and jurisprudential aspects, then the corrupt rule of

law (lex corrupta) may also be included in it. Indeed, the weakness of the

formal and jurisprudential aspects for the rule of law is that for the most part, they take no interest in the substance of the law that the rule of law

wants to dominate and implement. They are satisfied with the existence

of the law and that it fulfills a number of jurisprudential demands such

as generality, stability, clarity, and absence of rhetoric. But why should we

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

16 * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

praise legislation that grants the government-publicly, unambiguously,

and generally-the authority to infringe upon the rights of man as an

unworthy and unnecessary objective? What use is there in encouraging the government not to prejudice the enforcement of law when its substance is prejudicial? Should we be satisfied with the concept of the rule of law, when

its formal and jurisprudential characteristics may exist in a totalitarian

state? Haim Cohen justifiably pointed out that the "rule of the law"-is

our regime of law-

This does not mean only that the governments that rule a state act according to the law: totalitarian governments also act according to the law of their states, according to the laws that they themselves legislated for their goals and according to their conventions. An example of this is the Nazis who came to power according to the laws and who committed the majority of their crimes according to the authority of the specific laws that they seized for this reason. Nobody would say that "the rule of law" prevailed in Nazi Germany and nobody would disagree that a rule of crime prevailed.

Indeed, it would be a mistake to identify the rule of law principle

with the legitimacy of the administration principle, with the addition of

jurisprudential demands. Professor Zamir has noted:

The principle of administrative legitimacy in a democratic state is an obliga- tory principle, but not an adequate one. First, it fails to discern between a democratic state and other types of states. A police state too, under a military, party, or religious regime seeks to uphold the principle of administrative legitimacy. The difference between a democratic society and a police state lies not in the obligation to act according to the law, but mainly according to the letter of the law. Second, the legitimacy of the administration principle is not enough to guarantee that a democratic state upholds its purpose. The main purpose of the democratic state is to serve man. This purpose depends, first of all, on the letter of the law and not on observance of the laws. Observance of the laws guarantees order and stability but not freedom and welfare. The faithful enforcement of corrupt laws does not serve the dignity of man; on the contrary, it will probably demoralize man. Only the implementation of laws designed to serve man can justify the purpose of democracy.

Thus, we should not be satisfied with what Professor Darken terms

the "rule-book conception" of the rule of law The rule of law refers to

more than the legitimacy of the government. The rule of law must be

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Is * ISRAEL STUDIES, VOLUME IO, NUMBER 3

law in its essential meaning, founded on the rights of the individual and on the individual as part of the social collective (termed "state") that functions democratically and expresses the will of the majority. The second tier is the

jurisprudential level. Only a law that upholds these demands protects the

principle of the rule of law. The rule of law in its formal sense stands at the highest level. The law is just and proper when it comes from the essential workshop, passes through

the jurisprudential level, enjoys the formal rule, and acquires everyone's

respect. If the foundation is destroyed, then the heights no longer exist. I fear that by overemphasizing the rule of law in the sense of domination of the law and its respect, we blur the basic assumptions on which the law and its regime are built. T-hese assumptions are a democratic government

in whose center stand man and the social entity-the state-and where

the individual reaches fruition when the state operates through a regime

of representatives based on the majority's decision. I shall now discuss a

number of factors in the essential rule of law.

(c) The Essential Rule of Law and the Rights of Man

In the center of the perspective of the essential rule of law stands man.

The dignity of man is a basic value in every society. The dignity of man is derived from the Jewish tradition according to which man was created in

the image of God. "Happy is the man who was born in the image [of the

Lord]; a greater love is intended for him who was born in the image [of

the Lord]." The dignity of man is the dignity of all men. Therefore, even

the dignity of a prisoner and detainee must be safeguarded. This ethical

standard is so precious to us that we are sometimes willing to sacrifice on its

altar another important value-Truth. Thus, we forbid the use of violence

for pressuring suspects to tell the truth during interrogation. The principle of equality is derived from the dignity of man. Everyone is equal before the law. According to the United Nations Charter: "Every man is born free and

equal with regard to dignity and rights." Israel's Declaration of Indepen-

dence states that the State of Israel will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed, or sex. Indeed, equality is a supreme value in Israel. I have spoken on this in the past:

Equality is a basic value in every democratic society ... The individual becomes integrated into the general network and participates in the build- ing of society, realizing that others are doing likewise. The natural need for man to safeguard equality is based on considerations of justice and probity.

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Begin and the Rule of Law * 19

A person who wants his rights respected must recognize the rights of others. The need to preserve equality is vital for society and the social agreement upon which it is constructed. Equality safeguards the government from tyranny. Indeed, no factor more destructive to society than its sons and daughters' feeling that they are being treated unfairly. The sense of inequality is one of the harshest feelings. It detracts from the forces that unite society. It injures man's self-identity.

Freedom of expression is another value cherished by the Israeli regime: through it the truth is revealed and man realizes himself. It is the basis of a democratic regime. Indeed, the free exchange of information, opinions,

and views-not dictated by the government-is a vital condition for the

preservation of a democratic regime based on the rule of the people, by

the people, and for the people. This is the only way to guarantee that every individual in society receives the greatest amount of data needed to decide on matters of the regime and government. The free flow of ideas enables an organized change in the structure of powers that make up the government. Without freedom of expression, democracy loses its soul. I have dealt with a number of basic principles concerning the rights

of man. But the list is still incomplete. More principles need to be added

such as freedom of movement, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom to organize, right of possession, and so forth. A look at these basic rights shows that they are shared by all members of society. Sometimes they clash among themselves. My freedom of expression may infringe upon your dig- nity of man; my freedom of movement may impair your right of possession.

Indeed, "all or nothing" does not exist in an organized society. There is

"give and take" and balance among various interests. Thus, the basic rights are not absolute; they are relative. The right of one person is limited in order to protect the right of another. My right to extend my hand in front of me ends where my friend's nose begins. The individual does not stand by his own right. He lives within the framework of society that is obliged to guarantee the rights of all its members. Thus, the need to limit the rights of the individual so that society can uphold the rights of all its members means that we possess not only rights, but also obligations. Along with the rights of man we recognize public peace, the security and survival of the state are interests that a democratic state must protect. This is the only way in which the survival of society and the rights of its members can be preserved. The rights of man must not lead to the destruc-

tion of the state that was designed to safeguard them. Hence, the rights

of man cannot be a formula for national annihilation. Democracy does

This content downloaded from 154.160.18 on Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:29:51 UTC

Was this document helpful?