Analysis from Israel
The PM recently quashed a bill to reform the judicial appointments process that could have paved the way to combating public distrust of Israeli courts and ensuring that democracy is preserved.
Shaken by the domestic and international uproar over the so-called boycott law, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to put his foot down over the next “anti-democratic” proposal. Unfortunately, he chose exactly the wrong bill to quash. For unlike the boycott law, which indeed had some undemocratic elements, a bill to change the way Supreme Court justices are appointed would have made Israel more democratic. And the court itself would have been one of the chief beneficiaries.

The bill, by Likud MKs Ze’ev Elkin and Yariv Levin, would have required potential appointees to attend a public hearing before the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which would then have the right to veto any candidate it deemed problematic. Opponents charged that this would undermine the court’s status, and thereby Israeli democracy itself, and Netanyahu quickly capitulated: He announced that he “unequivocally opposes the bill,” and that his government “will respect and defend the High Court.”

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives