Since the beginning of July, Israel has had no state comptroller – the role responsible for inspecting, reviewing, and auditing policies and operations of the state. This is a result of Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana’s failure to take the necessary steps to implement a Supreme Court ruling ordering the Knesset to hold a repeat vote to elect the state comptroller, following misconduct that took place during the first votes.
Despite a clear and binding court order, the election process has not been completed, leaving the country’s supreme audit institution without a head.
Beyond the highly improper decision, to put it mildly, to disregard a Supreme Court ruling, the situation is causing immediate harm, particularly in the midst of election season.
The role of the state comptroller
The state comptroller plays a critical role in elections, overseeing political parties in several different areas. After the elections, among other things, the comptroller issues reports on the parties’ conduct during elections, in which they can determine that a party has failed to comply with the law and impose fines on it.
In real time, they issue directives on the management of party finances, provide parties with advisory opinions on routine matters, have the authority to determine that a donation to a party is prohibited, play a central role in determining the status of non-party actors active in elections, and more.
Even more pressing is the state comptroller’s role in the processes by which parties select their candidates.
Primary season ahead of the election to the 26th Knesset is in full swing. Candidates are raising funds, hiring consultants and campaign managers, and racing from one parlor meeting to the next, all in an effort to win the confidence of their fellow party members and secure an electable slot on their party’s Knesset list.
This year, however, these intraparty elections are taking place under unprecedented circumstances: without the state comptroller, the institution charged with overseeing the legality of campaign financing.
This is not a technical glitch or a minor problem. Intraparty competition, too, must be conducted according to clear and equal ground rules. The law, for example, limits the amount a candidate may raise in donations, sets an overall spending cap for each candidate’s campaign, and imposes detailed reporting obligations.
The purpose of this framework is clear: to reduce the influence of money on politics, ensure equal opportunity among candidates, and strengthen public confidence in the democratic process.
The effect on party primaries
The state comptroller also has broad authority to audit candidates’ reports. For years, after every round of party primaries, the comptroller published detailed reports documenting irregularities, deficiencies, and violations of the law.
In many cases, substantial fines were imposed on candidates who exceeded spending caps, accepted prohibited donations, or failed to meet their reporting obligations. The very knowledge that their financial activity would be closely scrutinized served as an important deterrent and encouraged compliance with the rules.
This year, for the first time since the issue was regulated by law, that oversight mechanism is paralyzed.
In effect, the Knesset itself, which designated the state comptroller as the body responsible for overseeing primary campaign financing, is hollowing out the very provisions it enacted. The rules of the game remain in place, but the referee has disappeared from the field.
A candidate who scrupulously follows the law may therefore find themselves competing against a rival who chooses to flout the rules, assuming that the chances of being audited or penalized are lower than ever. That possibility alone is enough to undermine both public trust and the candidates’ own confidence in the fairness of the process.
Beyond implications for the elections, there are other matters of state that are not being carried out in the absence of a state comptroller. No new state comptroller reports can be published, even those that have already been completed, and no examinations can be launched into new matters that were not planned in advance.
In addition, the state comptroller also serves by law as the ombudsman. Without a state comptroller, protective orders for whistleblowers cannot be issued. Public servants who seek to expose corruption are therefore left without legal protection and vulnerable to dismissal or retaliation.
Correcting this situation requires no legislation, public committees, or new oversight mechanisms. All that is required is to comply with the law and respect the High Court’s ruling by completing the election of a state comptroller without delay and allowing the institution to resume carrying out its duties.
Particularly at a time when debate over the state of Israeli democracy is intensifying, the Israeli public ought to be deeply concerned by a situation in which one of the state’s central oversight mechanisms has been rendered inoperative in the midst of party primaries and a general election campaign.
In a democracy, elected officials have a responsibility to obey court rulings, complete appointments required by law, and ensure institutions responsible for oversight and enforcement of the rules can do their job.
Prof. Ofer Kenig is a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute’s Political Reform Program and a senior lecturer at Ashkelon Academic College.
Dr. Assaf Shapira is the head of the Israel Democracy Institute’s Political Reform Program.