Knesset Members should be in charge, not bureaucrats

By Dr. Ofir Haivry, ISRAEL HAYOM

Here is a true story. Some 20 years ago, my family and I lived in a small rental unit that belonged to a senior official in the State Attorney’s Office. At the time, she was a department head and she was responsible for publishing a controversial report on the outposts in Judea and Samaria. In short, she was a senior member of a group often referred to as the “gatekeepers” or “watchdogs of democracy”

We owned a young female dog at the time, and this attracted many male dogs to our apartment and our landlord’s home. One day, one of those male dogs attacked and killed our landlord’s dog.

About a day later, she sent us a letter blaming me for the loss of her small dog. The letter demanded that my family and I immediately vacate the housing unit we were renting from her and threatened us with a lawsuit.

It turned out that despite the many qualities and good judgment officials at the State Attorney’s Office have, those watchdogs know how to become attacks dogs when things become personal. The letter made ludicrous claims and was treated accordingly. But it underscored the principle that has become mainstream even among liberal thinkers: No one is fit to be his or her own judge.

I was reminded of this case in the wake of the recent controversy over who gets to decide the cabinet’s positions on legislative matters. On the one hand, we have Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who says the ministers are allowed to make up their own mind; on the other side, we have the past and present officials at the Justice Ministry, who believe only they have that right.

This is a perfect example of how people like Talia Sasson, a senior official at the ministry who now leads the left-wing New Israel Fund, interpret the term “democracy’s watchdog.” Sasson recently said that Shaked cannot represent the Justice Ministry at various legislative meetings because Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber does not agree with her views.

There you have it: Justice Ministry officials are now saying outright that they are in charge of formulating the government’s views rather than letting elected officials make policy. The ongoing spat emerged from disagreements over a bill aimed at curtailing state funding for provocative art, but it represents an even bigger demand from the Justice Ministry’s bureaucracy: that only they can decide what the government’s views are on the issues at hand, even if they have nothing to do with constitutional matters.

According to this premise, if there is a Knesset hearing about the dairy industry, and some ministers want to open it up for competition, they can be overruled by Justice Ministry officials who want “distributive justice.” As a result, what carries the day is not what elected officials and ministers believe in but what Justice Ministry officials want.

How can supporters of this approach justify it? According to Sasson, “the attorney general represents the public interest,” and this puts him above the ministers, who are just elected officials and have no legal qualifications.

There is nothing wrong with harboring a blind belief that the attorney general and his cohorts are gifted with some unique judgment that can never be flawed, but this works only in fairy tales. The dog incident and many other such incidents show that we would best be served if we stop believing in fantasy and accept that all make mistakes and occasionally even have ulterior motives when they discuss a topic that has to do with them. For all of democracy’s faults, letting bureaucrats rule is still not a better alternative.

As Plato wrote in “The Republic,” the guardians must know their place; otherwise, they won’t wait for others to destroy the state but will do so themselves.

Dr. Ofir Haivry is vice president for Academic Affairs of the Herzl Institute and the director of its National Strategy Initiative.