Nat'l Security Council: Make ideas public

I begin with an apology to my readers for not having written for sometime.
As reported in the media, in a meeting last Monday, the chief adviser, approved in principle, the idea of forming a National Security Council (NSC). It has also been reported that a draft proposal is to be placed before him within a month. No timetable has yet been set for adopting it.
Talks of forming an NSC came up in the rumour circuit soon after the events of January 11, 2007. In fact a seminar at Radisson, a few months into the emergency, did have some speakers referring to it in passing. Then, we all thought, it died a natural death as nothing more had been heard about it. Over the last few months, rumour mills have been churning it once again with the first ever concrete information of a meeting at the level of the chief adviser. Since the government has not issued any denial about the veracity of the news, we can safely assume that a meeting on the subject was held and that some sort of an NSC is in the formative stage (Or is it in a far more advanced stage than that?).
Since we know nothing about it, it is not possible for us to comment on the substantive aspects of the idea. However, we can and do intend to comment on the process so far followed. Bluntly put, whatever thinking has gone behind the NSC idea has been behind closed doors. Nothing has been shared with the public, and that is where our biggest objection lies. Why a matter of such importance has been worked at in such a hidden manner? The authorities may argue, since nothing has been finalised, there is nothing to make public to seek their views on.
Well, the matter is just not that simple. Since the coming of the present caretaker government we have seen a few very positive developments in terms of ensuring transparency and accountability of the government. The re-constitution of the Election Commission, Anti-corruption Commission (it was really a rebirth), and the Public Service Commission, the just announced policy on women, the imminent formation of Human Rights Commission, and the current process of enacting the Right to Information Law. All these will greatly enhance good governance, empower citizens, assure them of justice and fair play, and give them new rights.
The main feature common to all of them is that they were all demand driven --- meaning there was demand from the public for such institutions, laws, and policies. In fact there is a long history of struggle of the people behind each of the above developments. In each of the aforementioned cases the government responded to a long-standing public demand. So the question is what is the demand base of NSC? Is there any public demand for it?
Well the answer can be that even when there is no public demand, the government on its own can think of ideas, policies, and institutions that can be good for the public. We agree. But then the public must be given a chance to understand what it is all about. The public must know its rationale, its need, its justification, its cost, and most importantly how this organisation will serve public interest better. The key word is 'public interest'.
At this stage it is not our intention to question whether an NSC will be a good or bad thing for the country. Nor do we want to attribute any motive to those who have pushed the idea to come as far as it did. What we now categorically demand is that the debate should be brought to the public domain. There will be tremendous benefit in doing so. First, by knowing about it in details, the public in general and experts in the public domain can make significant contributions to the ideas now being discussed in forming an NSC. Such ideas can greatly improve what is being proposed. By involving the public at an early stage, their ownership can be far better guaranteed than bringing them in at a point far advanced. That will only alienate them.
Because the NSC process has so far been shrouded in mystery, the public domain is filled with all sorts of unhealthy and unhelpful rumours, speculations and more damagingly, suspicions. When there is an absence of information, the space is automatically filled up by rumours, misinformation, and unkind interpretations. Given the fact that we have been ill served by our leaders in the past, especially by those who have extra-constitutional origin, suspicion is natural and rejection is almost automatic. The present government must be aware of it, and be extremely sensitive to it.
Permit us to conclude with some reality check. When government do things people want, they last. Even unrepresentative governments like the present one will be long remembered for their anti-corruption drive, the electoral reforms, the ID cards, and the voter list (assuming that no major flaw will be discovered), the human rights commission (which needs some changes), the policy on women and the Right to Information Act (to be enacted soon). Nothing has ever been durable that has been forced down the throat of our people. Many institutions and laws were enacted but did not stand the test of time simply because the people were not taken into confidence while formulating them, and were not involved in implementing them.