yankel, I agree with you that SC moved into an ill-defined area. I also agree that Iranian regime claims to be a democracy with restrictions.
So, there are levels here. So, lets compare: Economist has a democracy index out of 10 in 2024: Sweden 9.9, USA 7.8 (was 8.3 20 years ago). Israel 7.9 (was 7.3). Iran 2 (was 3) – same as Russia (was 5) and China and Saudi Arabia. I am sure this is not a pro-Israel organization. So, Israeli democracy is doing OK – despite all the problems.
But again to your particular beef with SC: your attitude is legit, but it is simply that Israeli law had areas that were not defined well and it is natural for one of the competing branches of government to move in when others are not able to. It is problematic, without being “illegitimate”. For comparison, US congress is often unable to make important decisions, such as declare wars, sign treaties, and make major economic policies. Presidents end up making temporary decisions that they should not be doing according to constitutional design. So, some of those decisions are challenged in courts; others expire when government changes, etc.. Sometimes, public outcry – and a threat of the next elections – is such that presidents rescind their policies. It is a mess, but it is a legitimate democratic mess.
Same thing in Israel – your plan should be to build a bigger coalition that will enact new laws changing the system. This bigger coalition HAS TO include people with whom you don’t fully agree. Last I read was that proponents of judicial reform are now considering compromise measures that will bring more people onboard.
And to history of that – my humble understanding is that Tal’ laws was an attempt of such compromise – and there was no progress in bringing charedim into the army, community simply used this as an opportunity to continue previous arrangement. So, it may be that other groups are fed up with this behavior. You have to accept that and see whether you can restore trust.