The civil service has twice recently been subject to sharp attacks from the Cabinet which it serves. The charge each time has been “disloyalty” on the part of civil servants towards the present government.
In September, when the Cabinet was formally asked to endorse the composition of the Israeli delegation to the UN General Assembly, several of the ministers pointedly questioned the Foreign Ministry staff’s sense of identification with the government’s policies. The first to voice this criticism was Commerce Minister Gideon Patt who claimed that Israel’s representatives around the world do not support the government’s views and consequently cannot defend its policies in the course of their political and diplomatic contacts.
Patt suggested a “reconsideration” of the personal composition of Israel’s delegation to the UN Assembly. It comprised veteran ambassadors and other high-ranking Foreign Ministry staffers.
Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir diplomatically evaded the suggestion by arguing that there was no time for reshuffling the delegation and by reminding the Cabinet that the problem Patt was raising had been discussed a year earlier, and no specific decisions had been taken at that time. Premier Menachem Begin, however, observed that Shamir would do well to bear in mind Patt’s remarks and to impress upon the UN mission members their duty to faithfully represent government policy. On his return from New York, Shamir made a point of praising the delegation members in his report to the Cabinet.
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE CHARGED
A year earlier, me same suspicions and allegations concerning the “loyalty” of the Foreign Ministry civil servants and their ability to represent the government’s policies were first voiced at the Cabinet. In May, 1979 the Cabinet was asked to endorse the nominations of some 20 diplomats to various posts in Israel Embassies in Europe and the U.S. Usually, Cabinet approval of such Foreign Ministry nominations is a formality, But on this occasion Begin asked the Cabinet to withhold its confirmation. Begin argued that he is entitled to study the curriculum-vitoe of the diplomats before sending them to their new posts.
Staffers at the Foreign Ministry reacted angrily that Begin was exercising unwarranted political interference in the civil service.
A week later the issue was discussed again the Cabinet’s weekly session and all the diplomats were approved. But the Prime Minister took the opportunity to express his views on the qualifications of the Foreign Ministry staff. He alleged that many of them are not purely professional diplomats but political nominees of past Labor Party administrations. He accused the Foreign Ministry diplomats in various Israeli Embassies of disloyalty to the present government.
Begin’s accusation a year ago, and Patt’s remarks just recently, impelled the Foreign Ministry employees union to protest by issuing tough statements against the attempts “to destroy their image and to smear them with accusations regarding Israel’s failures in the international arena.” In one case, the Foreign Ministry staff threatened to strike should the attacks continue.
COMMERCE MINISTRY STAFF ACCUSED
The criticism voiced on the Cabinet level against the civil service has not been limited to the Foreign Ministry. Cabinet Ministers had claimed time and again that the Finance Ministry senior staff do not support the government’s economic policy and accused them of deliberately planting obstacles in the government’s path. Commerce Minister Patt launched tough verbal attack on his own subordinates, claiming that they are not entitled to differ from his policy. Patt’s ire was raised because a memorandum composed by one of his officials, disagreeing with the Minister’s decision on the value added tax policy, was leaked to the press.
Under the British Parliamentary system that exists in Israel, a change in government does not mean personnel changes in the civil service.
The law accords the civil service in the government ministries an independent status. The low regards government employees as a professional caste expected to serve the political level regardless of what party or policy is in power. A new minister in is entitled to appoint only very closed aides, according to his personal choice, i.e., his secretary, his bureau chief, his spokesman and the director general of the ministry. All the other appointments in each of the ministries are made in accordance with an administrative process involving a tender and an internal appointments committee. Formally, at least, every staffer has the same opportunity to compete for every available post.
However, during the 30 years of Labor’s administration, many of the important posts in the public administration were manned by supporters of the leading political party. Labor and its coalition partners obeyed the formal rules, obliging them to open the senior jobs to free competition. But in practice they managed to man these pasts, by and large with their own people.
This tendency gradually declined during the last years of Labor rule, and in some of the ministries a truly “British” civil service has in fact been established. Likud came to power in 1977. It was the first time that the governmental administration was subordinated to a new major political party. Begin and his ministerial colleagues declared that they would follow the British tradition by keeping the senior civil servants at their posts nevertheless. During its three years in office, the Likud has done its best to man senior and sensitive positions, with its ideological supporters.
At the same time, Cabinet ministers and other coalition politicians have resorted to attacks on the civil service in those ministries where the new government failed to replace the manpower with its own Followers. Thus, Likud has failed to live up to its own high minded promises to emulate the grand British tradition of an apolitical civil service and has emulated, instead, the less lofty practices of its Labor predecessors.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
