The political and public debate surrounding the abolition of the reasonableness grounds also involves the issue of political appointments in the government and public service. Both sides use the issue of appointments to prove the justice of their path.
The government argues that there is no justification for judges to serve as oversight courts for appointments that express the government's choice of people who promote its policies. Opponents of the legislation argue that reasonableness is the last line of defense against politicization of the civil service. Recent examples highlight the controversy well.
The press conference at which Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced the legal reform took place just 12 hours before the High Court of Justice discussed the appointment of Aryeh Deri as minister. Less than a year ago, however, Israel's High Court of Justice prevented Lapid's government from appointing Meni Mazuz to the committee for appointing senior officials during the transition period, because such a permanent appointment on the eve of elections was unreasonable.
It is highly doubtful whether the effect of reasonableness on the government's judgment on the one hand, and on the quality of appointments on the other, is significant. A recent study we conducted at the Tachlit Institute shows that in the past 20 years, only seven appointments, out of thousands, have been disqualified by the High Court of Justice. The dispute over reasonableness is important, but the truth is that even if the cause remains in place, it will not help save the public service, which has undergone a continuous process of disintegration and weakening in recent years. It is deteriorating due to a lack of public and media interest in the quality of the appointment processes, and due to political instability, which leads to rapid turnover in the offices of ministers and director-generals and a lack of attention to long-term issues.
Public bureaucracy is an engine of reforms and in-depth professional processes, enabling Israel to develop and cope with the challenges of the hour. A professional and high-quality public bureaucracy enables Israel's ability to maintain a long-term vision and promote the common interest of all groups in the country. Coping with the COVID-922 crisis, the water desalination project, Government Decision <> (expanding public investment in minority populations) and the food labeling reform could not have been carried out without a strong avenue of professionals with extensive experience.
Urgent action must be taken to halt the deterioration of the civil service by improving the quality of senior appointments, with an emphasis on professionals with relevant experience in their fields. In addition, we should strive to create a public and media discourse that follows the government's work and gives credit, negative or positive, according to the quality of the decisions and complex professional processes of each ministry. Reflecting the government's work to the public is important not only for the distribution of public credit, it is an inseparable part of the ability of the professional and political echelons to make decisions and pass complex reforms for the benefit of the broad public interest.
The apparent elimination of the reasonableness grounds will not benefit the civil service and will not necessarily improve the quality of political appointments; But it is important that the discussion and engagement with the state of the public service continue and take place in isolation from this political event. The fate of the civil service is critical to Israel's future as a functioning and progressive country, and the discussion of reasonableness is not enough to exhaust it.
Adv. Yaniv Cohen heads the Tachlit Institute
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us