Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1204548
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 JANUARY 2020 OPINION proved a 'disappointing' sight at feeding time. Rather than devour that goat in one gulp, and spilling a leg on- to the jeep's roof… the novel's T-Rex approaches its prey cau- tiously; and then almost timidly guards the carcass against pos- sible incursions by scavengers… just as any apex predator would today, when facing competition from other carnivores. In the book, this prompts the Park's chief science advisor to suggest genetically 'modify- ing' the dinosaurs, so that they 'match' our own flawed expecta- tions instead of reality: tamper- ing with their genes to make oth- erwise fast-moving, intelligent creatures look slow and dimwit- ted… or to dim their unexpect- edly bright colours to a dull, uni- form greyish-brownish-green. Unlike the film, the novel goes beyond the mere use of genet- ic technology to bring extinct animals back to life. Like Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein', it also explores the God-like powers inherent in the creation-manip- ulation process; and what might happen if we tamper too far with the natural order of things. None of which, of course, has anything to do with the fact that the latest sequel will be filmed here… or wait, maybe it does. OK, I'll concede that the follow- ing analogy is a little contrived: but the dilemma explored by Michael Crichton's novel is in a sense parallel to the political and institutional shifts this country is currently experiencing. Take the controversy sur- rounding the appointment of a new police commissioner, for example. Our present, flawed system (i.e., simple appointment by the Prime Minister) was not considered in any way 'flawed' for any of the five or so decades since it was introduced in the 1960s: a veritable Jurassic age, by our present standards (just think that the Maltese head of state was still the British Governor, even after Independence). So it is not strictly a case of hav- ing a system that is, in itself, not for purpose; it is more a case of a system that used to be perfectly valid, until the political landscape evolved dramatically over the last 20 or so years… with no corre- sponding evolutionary changes to the country's institutional set- up in the meantime. Like that Triceratops brought back from extinction after 65 million years, we retained an ar- chaic system of appointing police commissioners… yet still irra- tionally expected the office to live and breathe normally in a totally changed environment. Then we all watched, while it struggled, gasped and eventually heaved its last breath (mercifully, without having to also sift through its fae- ces… as happens with the Tricer- atops in the film). And now, like the Hammond Institute, we have to engineer a whole new system to take its place… and already we are ma- nipulating it, to somehow retain as much of its predecessor's qual- ities – eg, that the final decision rests with the Prime Minister – while also conforming to the ex- igencies of today (which include, inter alia, that the position has to be independent of government, and enjoy mutual, national trust). As a result, we have a proposed system that is every bit as baffling as Jeff Goldblum's ravings about 'Chaos Theory'. The new Com- missioner will be chosen after a competitive process, overseen by the Public Service Commission, narrows contenders down to two shortlisted candidates. The Prime Minister will then choose one of those candidates, and present his choice to Parliament, which will first grill the candidate in the public appointments committee, and then have to approve him by simple majority in the House. All to appoint a police commis- sioner who is, on paper, supposed to be at an arm's length from the executive branch of govern- ment… for all the reasons that have become so painfully visible in recent years. The sheer complexity of this system points towards that unre- solved dilemma – how to create a functional system, without losing any of the 'benefits' of the one it is supposed to be replacing. So the screening process would be geared towards identi- fying a candidate that is palata- ble to both sides of the House… as if that were the only consid- eration that matters… even if it means concocting a hopelessly over-convoluted way of making public appointments: one that is likely to take ages to unfold in practice; and which in any case offers no guarantee of meeting the required consensus anyway. As a result, we would be get- ting a new system, yes… but one which still retains the flaws of the old. Because the underlying factors remain party-political in na- ture… and it has always been the Jurassic bipartisan hold over our institutions that resulted in all the issues that now need reform- ing in the first place. This suggests that, in some ways, our institutional set-up would still likely remain Juras- sic for some time to come: even if the whole point of the Jurassic Park novels and films is precise- ly that extinction happens for a reason; and that it is never a good idea to keep outmoded and historically obsolete models alive beyond their expiry date. Oh, and they also illustrate that failure to consign extinct sys- tems to history, at the appropri- ate time, can have chaotic – or even fatal – effects… something which, to be honest, we didn't even need Jurassic Park to illus- trate, after all the experience of the last three years. The screening process would be geared towards identifying a candidate that is palatable to both sides of the House… as if that were the only consideration that matters… even if it means concocting a hopelessly over-convoluted way of making public appointments: one that is likely to take ages to unfold in practice; and which, in any case, offers no guarantee of meeting the required consensus anyway