Even the courts of law rely, in some measure, upon the existence of a credible threat of force where necessity arises for the vindication of their authority. The execution of the threat ensures temporal restoration of order where a breach has occurred or is threatened.
However, the threat is not necessary, and is in fact antithetic, to the sustenance and achievement of an abiding state of law and order. PoÅÇlitical and social order must rest upon a principle more humane and more civilised than a threat of violence. The invocation of force must be an exception to the general rule. In a democracy, the credibility of a government is equal to the strength of its oversight institutions. A government that fosters the structural and substantive independence of oversight institutions pleads an unequivocal case of innocence. On the flip side, the weakening of oversight institutions is confessionary and can properly be accepted as constituting an admission of guilt to whatever charge may be on the table. Social and political order rests not upon authority but upon strength and independence of oversight institutions both public and private. It is for that reason that the furore engulfing our Judiciary, as regards the appointment of Judges is gravely worrisome.
