CC or a cult?

The debate on the overdue appointments to the Constitutional Council both outside Parliament for over two years now, and inside Parliament this week, is a glaring example of how the affairs of this country are being handled at the very apex.

At the very least, the Government's prevarication in confirming the appointment of this Council goes against the spirit of what the 17th Amendment to the Constitution -- passed unanimously by Parliament back in 2001 -- was meant to contribute to good governance in this country.

If at first the Government was virtually invoking the legal doctrine of necessity because the minor political parties could not decide on a nominee to this hierarchical Council, it has now transpired that it is invoking the political doctrine of necessity to retain the status quo, i.e. to have its loyalists in what are meant to be independent Commissions -- the Police, Elections, Bribery and Corruption, and Public Service.

Most people have lost sight of what the 17th Amendment was all about. It was introduced in 2001 at the height of political interference in the administration of all those vital organs of Government that directly impact on the lives of the people. The Constitutional Council was meant to arrest this deteriorating trend after a public outcry was taken note of by the legislators at the time. What it aimed at was to clip the wings of the powers-that-be in appointing henchmen to these important arteries of Government to do their bidding.

The minority political parties took a month of Sundays to throw up a common name -- the last one to be filled. In doing so, they recognised a public servant, a former Auditor General, whose integrity was beyond reproach, but the exercise exposed a major flaw in the selection process in giving political parties the final say in selecting men and women of honour. It was a case of one step forward, and then one sideways.

This meant that political parties had to go in search of such persons, which they rarely did, and meant the traffic was the other way around - men going in search of political parties. The former brings to mind the story of Greek philosopher Diogenes wandering the streets of Athens lantern in hand in broad daylight, searching by all accounts, for an honest man.

However, with some luck, the nominees are now appointed; men of solid credentials and standing; respected by their peers, probably a vanishing breed. What is distressing is how the Government seems to have shown callous disregard to their nominations.

This week's statement by the Government spokesman in Parliament betrays the Government's hidden agenda to retain control over these appointments. So skewered are some of the Government's appointments, that recently the Human Rights Commission lost its voting rights at the UN because of its apparent partiality.

Our Political Editor refers to the President promising to look into the appointments to the Constitutional Council, but how presidential will his actions be? Or will he act just any other politician, filling these places with 'Yes Men' who will do as they are told. Time and time again, it has been said that any nation-state's foundation is rooted on the solid institutions that are created -- which survive the test of time, the vagaries of political winds and the idiosyncrasies of politicians, who are but birds of passage in the history of a country.

The recent death of former President Suharto of Indonesia is a case in point. The General is credited with bringing stability in the post-Sukarno (Independence) era to the world's fourth largest country in terms of population.

His credo was "I will give you stability. I will give you economic prosperity. You just let me run this place like my personal fiefdom". He did not build institutions. It was an open secret that he and his family amassed huge wealth by improper means. Thousands of people were incarcerated or 'done away with'. But he gave 'stability'. Everything revolved around his cult-like figure, and he ruled for decades in that way.

With his exit, Indonesia finds itself still like a newly-independent nation: Its people struggling to build institutions, finding it difficult to come to terms with their self-confidence at home and their self-respect among the comity of nations, in tatters.

It was only earlier this week that Sri Lankans celebrated the 60th anniversary of its own Independence. And, the only institutions left are those introduced before Independence. The introduction of Constitutional Councils and independent Commissions, with all their deficiencies, was a humble post-Independence effort at good governance, but how difficult it is in the current depths to which the country's administration has sunk, to make even that work.