But insofar as this is the same obscure professional "policy" to which the government respondents intended, it has no unique characteristic of one government or another - and therefore this does not explain the government's insistence on appointing a commissioner who holds a worldview that is close to its own].
- In order to gain an additional perspective on the nature of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner, it is possible to look for comparison at the discourse that took place prior to the legislation Section 12 to the Appointments Law, which deals with the position of director general of a government ministry. Section 12 stipulates that the appointment will be made by the government "according to the proposal of the minister in charge of that ministry", and that the position will be exempt from a tender according to Section 19 to the law. In this context, the justification for appointing CEOs in accordance with the minister's preference was mentioned in the Knesset, whether for considerations of close labor relations or for real political considerations. For example:
"The government decided that there should be a match between the minister and the director general of his ministry, and in fact the minister could replace him, which I personally do not oblige, but that was the government's opinion" (remarks of the Minister of Justice at the time, Pinchas Rosen, at the 13th session of the Labor Committee, the 3rd Knesset (January 21, 1959), at p. 8; emphasis added - 10).
"My second reservation is to clause 12 [...] This is the clause that permits any minister who enters a new ministry to elect the Director General as he sees fit. We see this section as the last remnant of the politicization of the apparatus. No one denies it either. The reason for this is that only if the first person acts in accordance with the policy set by the Minister, can the Minister be sure that his policy will be implemented, and therefore he should be allowed to appoint the Director-General according to his own choice. In our opinion, this remnant of the period of politicization should also disappear" (remarks of MK Simcha Baba in the debate in the plenum ahead of the second and third readings (D.C. April 6, 1959, 1925); emphasis added - 10).