At long last the rare bird has been found to head the Equal Opportunities Commission. Brian Glover is an asset for the post and there can be no doubt that he will discharge his duties and assume his responsibilities with integrity and professionalism.

The issue is not with the person who has been chosen by the Prime Minister but the manner in which this choice has been made.

If there was one occasion when the equal opportunity mechanism could have been triggered in the spirit in which it was intended to be was the mode of appointment of the Chairperson. The time taken by the Prime Minister to make up his mind is indicative of the fl awed process prevailing widely in this country, The secrecy and the mystery surrounding this and other appointments are damaging to the very foundation of good governance. Whatever rhetoric is used to promote good governance pales into nothingness when the process is tested by objective standards.

Equal opportunities can only be meaningful if an opportunity is provided to everyone to make use of the opportunity. If

 decisions are made behind closed doors without any iota of transparency, then the process is a far cry from equality of opportunity.

What was needed particularly for this particular appointment was to advertise the post and request all those Mauritians who might be interested to apply. A selection panel could then in all openness and transparency consider all applications, make a shortlist and call the shortlisted applicants for an interview. The transparent process could be even more enhanced by the selection panel having public hearings for all candidates so that the public gets to know and assess their relative quality and merit.

The ultimate decision would still have been for the Prime Minister. But at least there would have been compliance with a transparent process. I say this not to diminish the merit of the incumbent. Far from it. But he would have been in a much stronger position had he been selected by an open mode.

In one of the exchanges between Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande in the course of the French presidential campaign, F. Hollande criticized the outgoing President for his style of governance which meant that he controlled everything and he made all appointments. Hollande said that the Republic was not the personal property of any one individual and that the national interest demanded that the Republic is served by those who deserve to be appointed by virtue of their competence and merit and not only by those who are close to the President or who belong to his political or constituency family. This is an important guiding principle for all those who claim to exercise political power in the name of the Republic and that all decisions which they take are taken to further the national interest.

Unfortunately Mauritius missed the opportunity to give equal opportunity to all when the perfect occasion arose.

Anil GAYAN