From Zimbabwe to Jerusalem: A Lesson in Governance and Restraint

To understand how official attitudes toward proper governance have changed in Israel in recent decades, one can look at the flood of appointments now being made and compare them to an episode from my years in the Foreign Ministry.

At the outset, it should be said that the current government is not formally defined as a caretaker government, and technically, restrictions on its appointments do not apply. Yet recent political developments show that it is on its last legs and the polls are unequivocal, as is the public mood: it is clear that this is an interim period, with all the sensitivities that entails. Nevertheless, the government behaves as though it has just been elected and must immediately refresh the ranks.

Back in 2002, when I was Israel’s ambassador to South Africa, budgetary constraints led to the closure of Israel’s embassy in Zimbabwe. It was decided that the countries previously handled by that embassy would be reassigned to neighboring missions; we in Pretoria received responsibility for Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia. For the latter two, it mattered little where visiting diplomats would come from, but to Zimbabwe, the decision conveyed a message that its importance in Israel’s eyes had diminished. In order to minimize the diplomatic insult, credentials should be presented as quickly as possible.

However, all heads of mission must be approved by the government. At roughly the same time, the Labor Party withdrew from Ariel Sharon’s coalition, the government lost its parliamentary majority and Benjamin Netanyahu replaced Shimon Peres as foreign minister of a caretaker government. Such governments were careful to exercise restraint regarding appointments, certainly to positions that were neither essential nor urgent.

The Head of African Affairs at the foreign ministry and I repeatedly explained to anyone willing to listen that this was not a substantive appointment but merely a bureaucratic adjustment. Zimbabwe had not been told how relations would be managed going forward; silence conveys contempt; could an exception be made for this small matter?

The answer was unequivocal: there are rules. Zimbabwe will wait.

And what about here and now? A general who lacks relevant experience and who allegedly behaved questionably in the intelligence field is waiting at the threshold of the Mossad director’s office. The possibility of appointing the prime minister’s personal attorney as state comptroller has been raised. The implications of appointments to the Second Authority Council for the future of the free press – and democracy itself – call for a series of articles. There are rumors of moving the chairman of Israel Railways to the Electric Corporation, the chairman of the Electric Corporation to the national water company, and so on, as though national infrastructure is merchandise to be traded at a Likud Party convention.

Not in every matter is Netanyahu eager to intervene. Thus, for many months, Israel Aerospace Industries had no chairman, despite the company’s products being vital to national security,  because why should he involve himself in a dispute between political players? Nor should we forget the growing shortage of judges, due in large part to deliberate delays in convening the committee which appoints them, and the resulting denial of timely justice to litigants. That is, to those who are not the prime minister and do not dictate the timetable of their own trials.

As for me and Zimbabwe, elections were held in January 2003, a new government was formed, I was duly appointed, and I presented my credentials to President Robert Mugabe, the revolutionary leader who ruled his country for 37 years until he was ousted and exiled. I can still picture the endless motorcade of the all-powerful ruler, and remember, as vividly as though it were happening now, the blare of sirens announcing the presence of the supreme authority. Even to someone who came from Jerusalem and had served in Washington, their brazenness stood out, as did the contempt they projected toward ordinary citizens. Had I filmed it, I would compare it to what we have recently been seeing here at home, and could be sure if the resemblance is real, or if it only seems so to me.