Editorial

In a democracy such as ours there is a delicate balance between the governed and those who 'govern', those who wield power and those who, powerless, do what they can to obtain what they see is their right... and sometimes more. While this administration deserves praise for making a start to unravel decades of ingrained 'habits' both in the machinery of government and all that revolves around it, it must humbly accept that it is not infallible, that individual members - cogs in the wheels of that machinery - are only human and that errors of the past must be looked upon as such: errors that have to be put right. The emphasis has to be on the word "humbly".

This admirable trend to set checks and balances extends to the creation of a number of regulators - authorities - that are given the task to do what was formerly carried out by a single 'body', whether it be in power generation, water production, telecommunications, civil aviation, tourism... the list is endless. This separates the regulator from the 'business' that needs to be regulated when competition is a factor or when standards need to be set, and kept, by those that are being regulated.

Yet there are areas of government that fall outside this and the complacency of the system needs to be fought. The senior civil servants who may have become distanced from the day-to-day problems that the rest of us have to face, with the constant 'pass the buck' mentality, need to receive a clear message that they are there to manage and deliver.

A key issue that comes out of last Friday's official reaction to an interview the Ombudsman gave to another local Sunday newspaper is whether that should have been carried out at all. "Lecturing the Cabinet on what it should have done or not have done (on the question of compensation in the attempted murder of one of the Prime Minister's closest advisers) is certainly against the spirit, if not against the letter of the Ombudsman Act."

So, to get to basics, should the Ombudsman have accepted to give such an interview to a newspaper? We wholeheartedly believe that the Maltese population has a right to know what such an important head of a parliamentary institution has to say and in no way should Government put any pressure to 'gag' the Ombudsman or limit his access to the media.

To go one step even further back, why should we make such a fuss - to the extent that "it is extremely painful for the Government to have to issue this statement" - when the Ombudsman takes the opportunity of a newspaper interview to make public-spirited announcements? Do we immediately have to label these statements as politically motivated?

The Ombudsman made some damning statements in the interview. These are facts that cannot be refuted. In fact, they have not. How many MPs have not bothered to collect their copies of the Ombudsman's regular reports - or who can state, hand on heart, that they have read the reports and seen that action has been taken, one way of the other? The Ombudsman is understandably frustrated that he receives no reactions, one way or the other, to certain decisions he makes, which must not be easy.

We need more people in all walks of life who are prepared to make their voices heard - not because they are 'lame ducks' who do not need to seek reappointment but because they honestly feel that their principles are paramount. Within this current scenario, Government and Opposition have to show that they are prepared to implement what this head of a parliamentary institution, whom they have unanimously appointed, has decided no matter what the workload of the parliamentary committee he reports to is.

It is not a matter of politics but of institutional credibility. John and Jane Citizen, who are not wealthy, educated or well connected, must have the facility to go to this parliamentary institution in the confidence that they will be heard and that their voice will count as much as that of the heartless bureaucrat that has left their case pending for years, favoured the wealthy, educated and well connected and caused injustice.

Fighting the status quo, changing a mindset, is always harder than getting things done. The Ombudsman must retain the reputation of a doer... or all of us will be the poorer.