The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Opinion Why do we need democratic oversight of the police and the prosecutor's office? | Israel today

2022-12-26T06:25:40.412Z


The Yitzhak and Pegasus cases illustrate that tyranny can come from the civil service. The police and the prosecutor's office exceeded their proper measure. The solution is not neutering them, God forbid, but balancing their power


A fundamental constitutional misunderstanding is demonstrated in the criticism of the Legal Adviser to the Government, Gali Beharve-Miara, on the law regulating the subordination of the police to government policy through her representative, the Minister of National Security.

The police must be subordinate to the government.

The IDF, the Shin Bet, the Mossad and the police, the bodies that deal with legal violence - defense by force of arms against external enemies or internal defense - are subordinate to the elected government.

In the "Revolt of the Generals", the Chief of Staff rebelled against this gauntlet and resigned on the eve of the invasion of the Arab armies(!).

It was then determined in rivets: the Minister of Defense is the direct and sole supervisor of the army on behalf of the government.

In a kind of pathetic repetition of that event, some of the retired commissioners now "rebelled" against the subjugation of the police. Both rebellions arose, knowingly or unknowingly, against a founding principle of democracy - a monopoly on violence by the people's elected representatives, and in a parliamentary democracy - by the elected government, through ministers who are subject to government decisions.

True, there are differences between the police and the army.

One of the most important ones is that it is not desirable for a minister to directly manage the police investigations, the prosecutor's office's supervision of the police investigations or the quasi-judicial decisions whether to prosecute.

But don't we want a minister on our behalf to supervise the investigation policy of the police?

Or will the Minister of Justice supervise the prosecution policy?

The difficult reality revealed to our eyes in the police and the prosecutor's office, illustrates the necessity of democratic supervision of these two important bodies through an elected government.

Retired Deputy Superintendent Nir exposed in the Knesset the extortion of retired Superintendent Yitzhaki, the famous "document" that was hoisted over the heads of politicians to control them, in the manner of Hoover, the infamous head of the FBI.

But it is difficult to make complaints to the appointed minister at the time, Erdan, who did not act to correct this evil and others that Nir exposed.

It is only possible to criticize him to a certain extent, because the minister in charge was limited in his authority, especially when the "Yitzhak document" was hoisted over his head personally through a leak to the media.

Ayelet Shaked provides us with another example.

Justified criticism was leveled at her because of her cowardly silence in the face of the Ruth David affair.

This was a double affair: first, what appears to be the action of the Tel Aviv District Attorney in the service of a drug and murder gang; and second, what appears to be the cover-up of the affair during the tenure of State Attorney Shai Nitzan, and even the physical destruction of her investigation file, including the evidence found in it.

But there is a limit to the claims that can be made at Shaked.

The Minister of Justice was limited in his powers, as we saw later in Ohana's short tenure.

Shaked had to put her hand on the table and demand a thorough investigation of these horrifying affairs.

But she wasn't able to, because the "gatekeepers" are protected, as we know.

What is not protected here is the public's interest.

The critics of the planned reforms in the justice and enforcement systems, and quite a few pretentious "gatekeepers", do not understand the significance of the principle of the monopoly on violence and the principle of checks and balances, which must prevail between the three branches of government - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary - and between the officials and the elected echelon.

The principle of checks and balances is mainly intended to prevent tyranny or corruption of one or several of the aforementioned parts of the government.

The authorities, officials and politicians will limit each other.

The Ruth David case illustrates that corruption is not only the domain of politicians.

The Yitzhak case, the Pegasus case and the Nitzan priesthood illustrate that tyranny can come from the civil service.

The police and the prosecutor's office - and also the High Court of Justice, which will not be discussed here - exceeded their proper measure. The solution is not neutering them, God forbid, but balancing their power, delimiting it and containing it through the other parts of the government. The current imbalance is the source of the danger to our democracy.

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

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2022-12-26

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.