Ends justify means...
Apr. 25th, 2006 12:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xaxamI wonder whether our Mr. Cuss would justify patricide if the result would be expulsion of the Jews from Judea... Actually, the question is not "whether" but rather "how"...
The original article is kept for future account settling.
Last update - 13:14 25/04/2006
Not surprisingly, the pundits, professors and political commentators are horror-stricken at the possibility of such a government coming into being. It's not good for the cabinet, it's not good for the Knesset, and it's not good for government in general, they say. Knesset and cabinet debates will be irrelevant. The system of checks and balances will be knocked off kilter.
Serious decisions will be tossed around between open government forums and closed ministerial committees. One minister protesting or objecting to some defense cabinet decision, for example, will be enough to bring the issue before the entire plenary. The bigger the government, these analysts insist, the more difficult it will be to reach critical decisions. Worst of all, the Knesset opposition will be small and lose its power to influence. In a nutshell, such a government is a threat to democratic rule.
An inflated cabinet, says a former minister with experience in fat governments, is inefficient. It has a hard time making decisions, and job appointments tend to be mismatched. But the chief argument trotted out is that big governments are wasteful.
Who needs so many ministers and deputy ministers? Every minister, with or without portfolio, means offices, assistants, cars and bodyguards, not to mention another chair upholstered in deerskin at the government table. All of this costs money. Wasteful, you say? This is chicken feed compared to the billions the government will need to evacuate 60,000 settlers in keeping with the convergence plan.
With all the talk about the size of the government, it is worth remembering: Serious challenges lie ahead. These are not ordinary days. Ariel Sharon, lying comatose and gradually fading from the public mind, was on the cusp of a dramatic gear shift, all set to steer the state in a new direction. But he left no natural heir, no offspring from the league of giants and revolutionaries.
The elections did not bring Kadima under Olmert the 40-plus seats the polls had predicted for the same party under Sharon. If the vote had been postponed for another few months, who knows if the party would have chalked up even 29. Labor barely scraped through, too, despite being spruced up with new people and a new leader. All of this is a warning sign that Sharon's vision is losing momentum. The Palestinians, with their rockets and terror attacks, also are doing all they can to prove that without Sharon's passion, determination and presence, his legacy is liable to fade with him.
Olmert's decision to form a broad coalition - a "convergence" government, as he calls it - therefore is a wise move. He is trying, quite rightly, to insure himself an 80-seat majority in the Knesset and create a motivated government so that he will not be shot down every step of the way, as Sharon was, by his party and the Knesset.
Aiming for a broad government is a clever strategic decision. I'm not reinventing the wheel, Olmert reminds those who object to Amir Peretz's appointment as defense minister. Moshe Arens, for example, handed over the defense portfolio to Yitzhak Rabin for the sake of a broad coalition. "I wonder what they would say if I appointed Peretz finance minister and the stock market collapsed?" Olmert says. "Kadima has no less of a social agenda than Labor. Socio-economic stability is something we also seek."
"The government I lead will be a convergence government, based on plans we've been working on for several months," Olmert says. "To move ahead on this, we need a broad, stable government that is capable of making strategic decisions."
If he succeeds, we may be able to say one day: Yes, this government was too big, but with the goals it set itself, size did matter.
The original article is kept for future account settling.
Last update - 13:14 25/04/2006
Big is beautiful
Yoel Marcus
As these lines are being written, the media headlines are bigger than the government Ehud Olmert is cooking up. Not that 27 ministers - or 24, depending on whether or not Avigdor Lieberman gets in - isn't substantial. It's one of Israel's largest governments ever. Toss in another dozen deputy ministers, and you've got a third of the Knesset sitting in the cabinet.Not surprisingly, the pundits, professors and political commentators are horror-stricken at the possibility of such a government coming into being. It's not good for the cabinet, it's not good for the Knesset, and it's not good for government in general, they say. Knesset and cabinet debates will be irrelevant. The system of checks and balances will be knocked off kilter.
Serious decisions will be tossed around between open government forums and closed ministerial committees. One minister protesting or objecting to some defense cabinet decision, for example, will be enough to bring the issue before the entire plenary. The bigger the government, these analysts insist, the more difficult it will be to reach critical decisions. Worst of all, the Knesset opposition will be small and lose its power to influence. In a nutshell, such a government is a threat to democratic rule.
An inflated cabinet, says a former minister with experience in fat governments, is inefficient. It has a hard time making decisions, and job appointments tend to be mismatched. But the chief argument trotted out is that big governments are wasteful.
Who needs so many ministers and deputy ministers? Every minister, with or without portfolio, means offices, assistants, cars and bodyguards, not to mention another chair upholstered in deerskin at the government table. All of this costs money. Wasteful, you say? This is chicken feed compared to the billions the government will need to evacuate 60,000 settlers in keeping with the convergence plan.
With all the talk about the size of the government, it is worth remembering: Serious challenges lie ahead. These are not ordinary days. Ariel Sharon, lying comatose and gradually fading from the public mind, was on the cusp of a dramatic gear shift, all set to steer the state in a new direction. But he left no natural heir, no offspring from the league of giants and revolutionaries.
The elections did not bring Kadima under Olmert the 40-plus seats the polls had predicted for the same party under Sharon. If the vote had been postponed for another few months, who knows if the party would have chalked up even 29. Labor barely scraped through, too, despite being spruced up with new people and a new leader. All of this is a warning sign that Sharon's vision is losing momentum. The Palestinians, with their rockets and terror attacks, also are doing all they can to prove that without Sharon's passion, determination and presence, his legacy is liable to fade with him.
Olmert's decision to form a broad coalition - a "convergence" government, as he calls it - therefore is a wise move. He is trying, quite rightly, to insure himself an 80-seat majority in the Knesset and create a motivated government so that he will not be shot down every step of the way, as Sharon was, by his party and the Knesset.
Aiming for a broad government is a clever strategic decision. I'm not reinventing the wheel, Olmert reminds those who object to Amir Peretz's appointment as defense minister. Moshe Arens, for example, handed over the defense portfolio to Yitzhak Rabin for the sake of a broad coalition. "I wonder what they would say if I appointed Peretz finance minister and the stock market collapsed?" Olmert says. "Kadima has no less of a social agenda than Labor. Socio-economic stability is something we also seek."
"The government I lead will be a convergence government, based on plans we've been working on for several months," Olmert says. "To move ahead on this, we need a broad, stable government that is capable of making strategic decisions."
If he succeeds, we may be able to say one day: Yes, this government was too big, but with the goals it set itself, size did matter.
