By Hafez Abu Seada Since the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) was created in June 2003, it has been marred with controversy. It is no more than window dressing, some said. It is a genuine step for reform, others countered. Given that the government refused for years to acknowledge even the existence of human rights violations in the country, for many the mere creation of the council brought a ray of hope in a previously sombre situation. The controversy wasn't just in the public domain. Even inside the NCHR, two kinds of members sat side by side. Those who were close to the government sang the praises of the NCHR, citing it as proof that things are moving ahead. Those who came from a human rights background were intent on using the NCHR as a platform for publicising grievances. In the end, even the reports issued by the NCHR reflected this kind of tension. The first report was laudable, everyone agreed. It fairly reflected the views of human rights groups and maintained a world-class level of professionalism. The second report was a bit disappointing. Then the third was just as good as the first. And yet, the NCHR still suffered a credibility crisis. One of the reasons for the NCHR's problems was that it could talk but had no power to get things done. For example, the NCHR would receive reports of violations, and all it could do is bring them to the notice of the authorities. It would send letters to the Interior Ministry or the Justice Ministry and then wait for an answer. The answer was typically belated. It would take ministries about 120 days to respond, instead of the standard 30 days. The council tried other means, such as writing to the president or the speakers of the two houses of parliament. It even petitioned the president and parliament for an end to the state of emergency, among other things. Nothing happened, and those who doubted the council's ability to change things seemed vindicated as time went by. So far, the NCHR lacks the assertiveness the public hoped for. So perhaps in the future it should address not only the government, but the public as well. It should take its case to the public and become more adamant in opposing violations. Credibility comes at a cost. Perhaps the NCHR should address not the symbols but the real basis of sovereignty -- the people. This week's Soapbox speaker is secretary-general of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights.
