"Bernard, what is the purpose of our security policy?" Prime Minister Sir Humphrey Appleby asks his personal secretary, in the great British comedy Yes, Prime Minister.
The loyal Bernard replies: "to protect Britain".
"No, Bernard. Its purpose is to make people believe that Britain is protected."
"Who, the Russians?" Bernard wondered.
"No, Bernard," replies Sir Humphrey, "the British."
After five election campaigns and two oscillating fraternal governments, we might have thought that the time for political stability had come.
Whether it's a full-on right-wing government or a full-on right-wing government - as long as a budget is already passed and that there are ministers here who are committed to the Israeli public for four long and full years.
However, the coalition negotiations indicate that, like Sir Humphrey's security policy, the emerging government could easily become a semblance of a government, which is mainly occupied with jobbers, cheesology and tug-of-war.
It is absolutely permissible to negotiate on the division of the cases, and any attempt to delegitimize the coalition negotiations is inappropriate, but in the end - the result should reflect a clear premise: it is true that we want all the factions to be satisfied and that the members of the coalition do not threaten to abort day and night, But after all, a stable coalition is a means, not an end. The incoming elected officials would do well to remember that a good government is judged on one central aspect - its success in taking care of citizens in all the areas that the state has appropriated for itself, such as personal security, infrastructure, education and health.
A good government - be it a right-wing, left-wing or unity government - needs to make sure it has executive capacity.
A period of recovery is nice, but it is more important to shake off the burdensome and disturbing establishment that has renewed itself even more strongly in recent years: the rotation.
Let's assume that the negotiations would have gotten more complicated, and that the positions of senior ministers would have been divided not between two claimants to the crown, but four - one each year.
We would understand that this was a joke, right?
But the truth is that splitting the minister's role into two people is only slightly less problematic.
Leave questions of worldview and agenda.
It takes a few months for a minister to take office, to fulfill the promises of his predecessor in office and to start implementing the policy for which he was elected.
We're not innocent either, are we?
It is clear to us that when Deri replaces Smotrich in the Treasury, he will also make sure to replace the senior officials of the ministry with his own people.
It is not a smooth change between two drivers, but a change of vehicle.
Did we go to the polls en masse and promise the right a solid majority so that the government would falter?
This is a distinct Israel Bluff, which has no equal in the democratic world.
Certainly, there is a change of ministers - here, the British finance minister changed only recently - but it is because of a crisis, an anomaly, disagreement with government policy or dismissals, and not an arrangement anchored in the coalition agreements.
It was retroactive, not a priori.
In Switzerland, the president of the executive authority changes every year and there is a rotation among its members, but this is a symbolic position, with no additional powers.
No one imagines that it is possible to lead ministry policy in such a short time.
In the obituaries for the outgoing government and what will change with the change of government, we said goodbye to the baccalaureate reform of Education Minister Yifat Shasha Biton.
The reform, which in the meantime has only managed to generate headlines, is an accurate metaphor for the problematic nature of short-term positions: passing a reform is the easy part.
There is no lack of ministers of education, or ministers in general, who launched a promising reform.
You know what's hard?
implement reform.
Implement it well, do a pilot and see that it works.
Fix, improve, expand, and God forbid.
A deep and fundamental change that will lead to the improvement of the country's systems requires a long-term commitment, governmental stability and the confidence of the minister that he has enough time to show the public the fruits of his labor, so that they will elect him again.
Even four years is a short time to implement large and comprehensive plans.
A minister who serves two years in practice is an apparent minister.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us