In the funniest and wittiest comedy series of all time, "Yes, Prime Minister" (and its predecessor "Yes, Minister") the character of Sir Humphrey, as the manipulative Cabinet Secretary, makes an art form of the tendency of technocrats to impede elected officials and dictate their own will. The humoristic traits of the show demanded taking things to the extreme, but anyone who knows politics from close up is quite aware of just how common these absurdities are and similar to what happens in real life.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The bottom line, besides the inefficacy of a cumbersome mechanism interested mainly in preserving itself and the sidelining of substantive considerations in the decision-making process, is the hunger for power of senior civil servants and their desire to influence national decisions. Even when high-level, dedicated, diligent, and impressive civil servants are involved, a power struggle takes place and the cost, without proper balance, can be high.
Most western democracies are in some stage of structural difficulty, where it's hard to distinguish between the egg and the chicken: a political system finding it hard to gain a solid majority and is in a constant and undecided state of elections; elected officials who need to show immediate achievements, instead of investing political resources for the long run; the public losing faith in its elected officials; responsible figures who avoid even entering the political arena and the level of the elected officials dropping and the contempt for their office rising. All these feed each other like a self-fulfilling prophecy: the lower the level and the more the trust is hurt, the more politicians are forced to make irresponsible decisions, which may look good at the time, but when these fail – the energies that politics attract aren't as good.
In contrast to the image of cynical, disconnected, lazy, and power-hungry politicians, the "professional" civil servants are portrayed as thorough, decent people who are interested in the good of the public. When an elected official does not agree with them, he must obviously be either harmful or corrupt. It's important to stress: many politicians are indeed irresponsible and corrupt; amongst the senior ranks of civil servants are many who are dedicated and thorough, and their advice has proven itself, in retrospect. But the assumption that they must all be as such - elected officials "bad" and civil servants "good" - is wrong and dangerous.
At the core of democracy is the combination of responsibility and authority. The people elect their officials and give them the responsibility to manage their affairs. If they are not satisfied, they can vote them out. Since they are accountable for the results, the officials must be given authority and power to determine and implement policy they believe in. It behooves them to take advice from professionals, it's important they are subject to the supervision of the legal system and public scrutiny of the press and social media. It is important they get legal advice to make sure they are operating within a legal framework. But they must be free to act, usually, according to their agenda, even if the professionals do not approve of their policies.
In extreme cases, the legal system must intervene when red lines are crossed, but the heart of the discussion must remain in the political sphere. The politician is accountable to the public. If the public is convinced that he made a mistake or abused their trust - his political world will crash into pieces. A director general, a lawyer, or a judge have a worldview, personal ambition (otherwise they would not have reached their senior positions), and often desire to influence national agendas according to their preferences. This is a legitimate tendency, but in order to implement it, they must enter the political arena, take responsibility, and pay the price of public exposure. One must not assume they are "professional" in the neutral sense.
The IDF has shown more than once the right formula for relations with elected officials. In 2000 it got on board, despite disagreeing, and implemented the policy of then Prime Minister Barak for withdrawal from Lebanon. In 2005, the commander of the 36th Division, Gershon HaCohen, executed the disengagement from Gaza even though he thought it was a major national mistake.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
It's all a matter of balance. It's good that politicians use the knowledge and expertise of professionals and hear their firm opinions in an internal discussion. But when it's all leaked in the name of transparency, everyone is harmed: the state, the politicians, and in the end the senior civil servants as well. When everything is leaked - there is no serious public discussion, since everyone is speaking for the record and no one is speaking to the point. When there is no serious public discussion, democracy is not sustainable.
