Most analyses tend to see last week’s shooting of Commissioner of Insurance, Maria van Beek in terms of the descent of our society into some quagmire of violence and unlawfulness.  That somebody who is a professional, somebody who no one can emerge and question their integrity, is attacked in broad daylight on her way to work is no doubt an indicator of decline. 

There is a difference, and arguably more accurate analysis.  We, as a society, are evolving.  We have, for example, moved from an era where public investigations, public hearings and commissions of inquiries were virtually none-existent to one where they are becoming a permanent and prominent feature of public life. There will hopefully be a time when they become again less prominent, not because of a fear of public accountability, but because mechanisms to buttress and sustain public accountability and transparency have become such a central part of our society that they erase the need for as many investigations and inquiries in the first place.

We are obviously not there yet, and, if the attack on Maria van Beek is any indication – and prevailing wisdom would tend to think it is – there are some who prefer the status quo, the particular way of getting things done, to remain the same.  It is not so much that we are descending therefore but, indeed because we are ascending, there are sections of this society, strongly vested interests, who would prefer that things do not change.

But things will inevitably change – change is the only guaranteed constant that exists. While there are the numerous conspiracy theories as to who was behind the attack on van Beek, the assumption that it was connected to her work over the past few months can be reasoned to be a safe one.

The question is, against the backdrop of the changes to come, and the implications of the shooting of an important public official during the maelstrom that is the CLICO situation, are we adequately prepared for the consequences of the establishment of a culture of public accountability?

Admittedly troubleshooters are rarely people who would win popularity contests, simply by virtue of the fact that they are needed at the worst of times to undertake tasks that are often inherently doomed to failure, or the success of which entails drastic changes impacting directly or indirectly on a great many people.  It is hard for people to understand that they are not the enemy. 

Maria van Beek was thrust into the position of troubleshooter, or damage mitigation agent, due to her qualification as the Commissioner of Insurance, yet she was subject to a very personal injury, no doubt because the office and the person were too closely aligned.  Whatever the grouse the person behind the shooting had, the perception of van Beek wasn’t of her representing a larger office, granted as its head, but as personally embodying that office.

In some other countries, a general system or entity is usually responsible for inquiries and investigations, usually in the form of a general inspection office.  In France, the body is called inspection generale. In the United States of America, a 1978 legislation created the position of inspector general for dozens of state agencies including USAID, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and even the National Endowment for the Arts.  In short, the mechanism for inquiry and interrogation into public accountability is so diffused into the system, so outside of the scope of any one individual or office, it is hard to focus on anyone as symbolic of any particular inquiry or investigation. 

In light of the recent incident, it is perhaps advisable to push the National Assembly into creating a multi-departmental, semi-autonomous, bipartisan office – an Inspectorate General – to facilitate public inquiries and investigations, inclusive of the ability to appoint investigators, commissioners of inquiry, as well as built-in statutory mechanisms to deal harshly with any attempt to unduly influence the process by any measure, whether it is subtle obstruction or outright violence.

We do not live in a perfectly run society, as arguably no one does – but as we strive towards creating a better place in which to live, we need to take stock of what needs to be done to get there.  This measure would be a serious step in that direction.