The corruption is spreading
By Yitzhak Zamir
Haaretz, November 7, 2004
The attorney general has recently issued a directive intended to prevent political appointments. Such appointments are characterized by using political power to advance personal interests. A minister or deputy minister hands out civil service jobs, as though they were private property, to political cronies. He does so, at the public's expense, to promote his political status.
This is illegal. The attorney general says it raises suspicion of committing a criminal offense of bribery or breach of trust. Therefore, he pronounces in the directive that a minister or deputy minister is forbidden to handle a request from a member of a party central committee, or a similar body, pertaining to a personal matter of said member or any confidant or crony of his. Such a request must be made directly by the interested party to the ministry's professional staff.
This directive is important, even courageous. However, as soon as it was published, many in the political system came out against the attorney general with harsh criticism, as was to be expected. Among the critics were central committee members (note: of only one party), Knesset members and even ministers.
Political appointments are governmental corruption. And the corruption is spreading in Israel. According to the international corruption index, Israel has been deteriorating for years toward the status of a corrupt state; in the last eight years, it has slipped from the 14th to 26th slot on the list of states examined. A few days ago, the state comptroller said in a public address that, "As far as the political appointments are concerned, we are witnessing loss of restraint ... the danger inherent in corruption is more serious than any political or security danger ..." This is true. Large powers have collapsed due to corruption. In Israel, which is having difficulty coping with severe security, social and economic problems, the danger of corruption is especially great. It erodes and spreads like cancer.
Despite this, many politicians are criticizing the attorney general's directive. Why? One argument says the directive is "anti-democratic." But democracy is, first and foremost, the rule of law. Political appointments are the rule of politicians against the law. In addition, democracy is based on the principle of equality. It requires, among other things, that every person receives an equal opportunity to get a public post. The political appointments give such an opportunity only to political cronies. It appears that the argument about harming democracy is based on the concept that the party's central committee was elected to dish out illicit benefits to its members. This is a distorted concept of democracy. The central committee is supposed to advance a political platform rather than personal interests.
A second argument is that a directive banning political appointments discriminates against central committee members. The opposite is true: Political appointments discriminate against anyone who is not close to the party's central committee. The equality principle requires that central committee members and their cronies contend in tenders to civil service positions like any other person.
Another argument is that the people appointed on the basis of their political connections - being members of the same party and partners to the minister's worldview - help him carry out his policy. The truth is that usually political appointments have nothing to do with policy, apart from the policy of personal interests.
As the state comptroller's report shows, numerous political cronies are appointed to low posts that have no bearing on policy, and often the appointments are family relatives who have no interest in policy. Moreover, many political appointments are made in ministries that have no policy differences among the parties, such as environment and transport. Even when there is such a difference, experience proves that civil servants carry out the minister's policy.
However, one claim against the directive is not unfounded - the claim that it is impractical. Similar directives have been issued before and nobody paid any attention. Interest is stronger than principle. Indeed, there are grounds to fear that the directive will be buried in a drawer and the minister will continue enlisting support in the party's central committee by means of political appointments. The directive's test is in action. The act should convince the minister that he has something to lose. For example, that he might be indicted for criminal charges and lose his place in politics. Then there will be a chance of success in the struggle against the corrupt appointments.
