Question

Professor Lifshitz, in In Praise of the Vision, p. 321, relates that during World War I, in England they wanted to deport the refugees from Russia and Belgium back to their countries despite the mortal danger involved (as far as the Russians were concerned, it was certain), because that was supposedly the political obligation.
Rabbi Kook published calls saying that this was unfit for a civilized nation, and so on, and organized an ambush in Parliament by the lawmakers against Herbert Samuel, the Jewish Home Secretary: how could he not be ashamed to send refugees to their deaths, and so on.
And Herbert Samuel didn’t understand at all where this was coming from. He asked the lawmakers: there are “official” rabbis for England, and they’re not saying a word—why listen to some Rabbi Kook, who himself is a Russian refugee… (later on they became friends).
But Rabbi Kook made enough of an uproar until they gave in to him, and everyone remained in England alive.
 
I really wonder:
How can people say that one must show respect to the Chief Rabbinate because it is the local halakhic authority and the official rabbinate, and that it doesn’t really matter what the Torah level is, how much of it is actually rabbinate and how much is politics, etc.—and even if there is corruption, it’s not such a big deal…
After all, the founder himself, when he saw an injustice, cried out, raised an outcry, and did what he could; he didn’t “count” the official rabbinate there.