The escape from Gilboa Prison by six inmates once again raises two questions: At a time of organizational failure, what responsibilities are required of commanders, and are we destined to only see reforms implemented once an organization experiences a crisis on a colossal scale?
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The question of the responsibility of commanders in hierarchical organizations is inherent in the totality of commitments and requirements of those in senior positions. Yet it also raises questions as to where the organization's responsibility begins and ends and what, if anything, the difference is between professional responsibility and command responsibility and between personal responsibility and overall "ministerial" responsibility.
One needs to differentiate between the concepts of taking and assigning responsibility. Taking responsibility is a sociological concept that stems from the personality of the individual meant to take it, their leadership, an organization's values, including the setting of personal examples, organizational and societal culture in the environment in which it operates, which varies from society to society, and ultimately is subject to the individual decisions of each officeholder.
The assigning of responsibility is a legal concept that requires a logical connection between the failure in question and officials in the chain of command in the hierarchical body as well as the division of responsibilities between command and professional staff. What role did each of these figures play in allowing the failure to happen?
The tendency to immediately call for the ousting of an organization's head as debate rages on in the public square may be natural, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it usually help to achieve the sought-after result. Genuine change only happens when senior officials are held responsible and conclusions about them are drawn, but that can only happen once the facts have been examined in depth. The decision to establish a state commission of inquiry that will be the sole body to recommend who should be held responsible in the chain of command was the right move.
In my professional life, I have reached the sad conclusion that in order for an organization in Israel to undergo significant change, it must first undergo a crisis of colossal proportions. History teaches us that it is only such a crisis that can lead policymakers in the field of security, budgets, and politics to differentiate between a mishap and an emergency.
Reforms to security organizations have unfortunately only taken place in times of strategic crisis: For example, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
Just two security organizations have yet to experience the kind of crisis necessary to receive national recognition of their importance – the Israel Police and Israel Prison Service. There is no doubt last week's events at Gilboa Prison and the commission of inquiry's findings will lead to necessary change and recognition of the role of the police in national resilience. Upon reaching this understanding, the necessary organizational and budgetary changes will also be made.
One question remains: Why can't the necessary reforms be implemented before a crisis takes hold?
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
