Needed: Parliamentary Oversight

Dr. Shirley Avrami, PhD

The committee established recently in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, to discuss the Communication Law, bypassing the Economic Committee that communication issues are under its authority according to Knesset rules of procedure, brings to sharp expression the damage to the Knesset's oversight role. In the Israeli system of government, in which there is almost no structural separation between the legislative and executive branches, and ministers are also members of Knesset, the Knesset's role of oversight over the government, the legislative branch's oversight of the executive branch, is problematic from the outset. However, in the current Knesset term, the two branches seem to have become one, as the Knesset hardly performs its role of overseeing the government actions, requiring reporting and critically examining them. While the legislative function is easy to examine, monitor and measure, because the what is needed is just to count the number of laws that have passed second and third readings and are included in the statute book, and the Knesset's role of raising issues on the public agenda is relatively easy to measure and examine, too, the definition of the applicability of parliamentary oversight, what is included and especially what should be included within the framework of the Knesset's role in overseeing the work of the government, not only as the separation of powers but also within the framework of creating balances and checks between them, is still vague. 

Although the Knesset regulations in Chapter 4, which deals with committee meetings, state that "at least a quarter of committee discussions in each session will be devoted to oversight, including discussions on agenda proposals and urgent discussions that have been referred to the committee, all on issues that involve oversight of the government's work; discussions on reports by ministers or government representatives," The role of oversight is more difficult to quantify. Does "discussion of a motion for order or a minister's report" constitute oversight in its very existence, or should the content of the discussions also be examined, whether a detailed report was indeed required, whether critical thinking was conducted on the report that came from the government, whether addition explanations were required if necessary, or whether follow-up discussions were scheduled.

And yet, there is great importance in public demand from the Knesset to fulfill its role as overseer of the government's work, because parliamentary oversight means separation of powers, and separation of powers means democracy. However, it is not enough for the government to consist of three separate branches; they must supervise each other and, above all, limit each other's power. This is the essence of the 'checks and balances' perception.

When the current Knesset holds 'supervision hearings', it sometimes misuses its meaning. for example, in the hearing in the Interior Committee on November 17, 2025, entitled "Supervision of the enforcement of planning and building laws against senior officials and holders of Judicial office." Because the purpose of the hearing was not, as its title suggests, supervision of law enforcement, but rather the continued abuse of the President of the Supreme Court and a discussion of deviations from building permits that he did not commit, so much so that, according to what was published in the media, the committee's legal advisor, Attorney Tomer Rosner, left the committee room while the discussion was still taking place. 

The Knesset's authority to oversee the government is enshrined in the Basic Law: The Government, according to which "the government is responsible to the Knesset for joint responsibility; a minister is responsible to the Prime Minister for the positions to which the minister is assigned (Article 4: Responsibility).

Supervision has always been a 'less prestigious' role than legislation because it is more nuanced, requires systematic and thorough work, and hardly guarantees headlines, and because it may pit Knesset members against members of the government, a position they are not always eager to be in, certainly when it comes to conflicts between members of the same party.

As mentioned above, the Knesset is currently holding discussions on the Communications Law in a committee that bypasses the Economics Committee, which was established specifically for this purpose, in an attempt that also seems unique to the current Knesset term and its processes, to bypass the parliamentary oversight that the Economics Committee would have exercised in the framework of legislation and discussion of the sections of the proposed law. This is done by transferring the discussion to a different composition of Knesset members, more convenient for the government. The very procedure reflects the continued trampling of the Knesset as an independent authority, and in particular its ability to function as a supervisory authority. However, a similar incident occurred in the Knesset about a decade ago, when the legislation of the reform in the electricity sector was transferred from a regular discussion in the Economy Committee to the Arrangements Law, the law which accompanying the budget legislation, and a special committee was established in the Knesset for this purpose - the "Special Committee for Discussion of the Government Authority for Urban Renewal Bill". The 'Movement for Quality Government' then petitioned the High Court of Justice, claiming that transferring the debate on the reform from the Economiy Committee to a committee that would transfer it as is, constitutes a violation of the work of the Knesset, and in particular the Knesset's ability to oversee. The High Court accepted the petitioners' argument and wrote in its ruling, "Knesset committees play a central and important role in the legislative process and constitute a central tool for the legislative branch to supervise the executive branch... Within the framework of these committees, their members, including Members of the opposition, have the opportunity to demand, investigate and receive clarifications from the relevant government officials regarding the legislative matter on the agenda, and often those discussions have a real impact on the fate of the bills and their content." This ruling also appears in the Knesset's rules of procedure. One can only guess what the High Court would do today if such a petition were brought before it, 
And it is to be assumed that this time he would have rejected it, perhaps on the grounds of non-interference in the work of the Knesset, because the Supreme Court, like the Knesset, is under attack that is part of the general attack on democracy. 

It is also necessary to mention the role of the opposition, which is not doing enough to protect the independence of the legislative branch, whose voice is not heard enough, and that sometimes the absence of its members from critical votes is what allows harmful laws, or dangerous appointments, to be passed. For example, in May 2025, MK (Member of Knesset) Limor Son Har Melech was appointed Deputy Speaker of the Knesset by the votes of 47 coalition members against only 27 opposition MKs, out of 52, who were present in the plenum at the time of the vote. The Deputy Speakers of the Knesset preside over the plenary sessions in the absence of the Speaker, and are members of the Knesset Presidency, a body consisting of the Speaker and his deputies, which determines the order of the Knesset's deliberations, so such an appointment or the possibility for the opposition to thwart it is of great importance, and there are many other examples of the issue of the presence of opposition members in votes. 

According to data from the Institute for Freedom and Accountability at Reichman University, updated for December 2025, public satisfaction with the government continues to be low. In this situation, parliamentary oversight is particularly important. As can be seen, it is mentioned in the Knesset statutes and the High Court of Justice, the highest legal court in the State of Israel, also defends it in its rulings. 

However, reality proves that this is not enough. To maintain the system of government, to maintain a proper democracy with three branches of government and checks and balances between them, regulations verdict are not enough. To maintain democracy, good will from all sides is also required, to preserve the rules of the game. Without this will, which has been trampled underfoot during the current government by government ministers and, to a large extent, and unfortunately, even by the coalition representatives in the Knesset, the role of parliamentary oversight is losing its meaning. Thus, we witness the abuse of government officials who come to Knesset debates, precisely by Knesset members who should receive information and reports from them about the government's work in order to fulfill their duties; in the government's refusal to send representatives to Knesset debates, or by not providing data or information for committee discussions, upon demand. In doing so, it undermines not only the oversight role of Parliament, but also the very ability of the Knesset to hold an evidence-based discussions. 

The 'watchdog of democracy' should consist of a media that will repeatedly criticize, that will repeatedly report what is happening in the Knesset, and of the public's power to demand a decent government that upholds the civil contract between itself and its voters, according to which citizens participate in elections and choose a government, and in return, it is committed to their benefit, well-being, and security, and does so while maintaining the rules of the game agreed upon between the parties, and not by violating them.

Dr. Shirley Avrami, a fellow at the Institute for Freedom and Responsibility at Reichman University, was the director of the Knesset's Labor, Welfare and Health Committee, the Research and Information Center (RIC), and the Knesset's Oversight Unit for Government Work, 'Katef'.