Checks, balances, and appoitnments in the public service : Israeli experience in comparative perspective
By: AMADO, Rivka
.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishers, sep./oct.2001Public Administration Review: PAR 61, 5, p. 569-584Abstract: This article explores the process of appointing government ministers and senior executive officials in Israel. It provides several case studies of the appointment process in the 1990s, a period of hyperfragmentation in the Israeli parlament. These studies reveal evidence of gross irresponsibility in the appointment process, as well as a lack of a meaningful oversight and checks in the process. One consequence is that the Israeli High Court wa asked to intervene and review and reject a number of these appointments. The article argues that although well meaning, this intervention represents a dangerous new trend; this new role for the Courts is both inappropriate and counterproductive. It is inappropriate because judicial intervention imposes a legal solution when a political solution is called for, and it is counterproductive because frequent judicial intervention weakens both the judiciary and the poilitical process. The article concludes with a proposal for an alternative approach to cope with the lack of meaningful oversight in the political-appointment process
| Item type | Current location | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Periódico | Biblioteca Graciliano Ramos | Periódico | Not for loan |
This article explores the process of appointing government ministers and senior executive officials in Israel. It provides several case studies of the appointment process in the 1990s, a period of hyperfragmentation in the Israeli parlament. These studies reveal evidence of gross irresponsibility in the appointment process, as well as a lack of a meaningful oversight and checks in the process. One consequence is that the Israeli High Court wa asked to intervene and review and reject a number of these appointments. The article argues that although well meaning, this intervention represents a dangerous new trend; this new role for the Courts is both inappropriate and counterproductive. It is inappropriate because judicial intervention imposes a legal solution when a political solution is called for, and it is counterproductive because frequent judicial intervention weakens both the judiciary and the poilitical process. The article concludes with a proposal for an alternative approach to cope with the lack of meaningful oversight in the political-appointment process
Public Administration Review PAR
September/October 2001 Volume 61 Number 5
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.