Editorial

When, last week in Parliament, the Prime Minister said the government and the opposition should get together to beef up the Permanent Commission Against Corruption, one would have thought that the Labour leader would stand up there and then to accept the offer. It was not the case.

The opposition has not failed to show its disappointment at the way the Permanent Commission Against Corruption has operated so far. Opposition Leader Alfred Sant even accused the commission of failing to take effective steps under Nationalist governments. It is not unknown for Dr Sant and his party to hit out at institutions, which is acceptable as long as such criticism is meant to keep those bodies on their toes. But it would be very short-sighted to erode confidence in institutions for purely short-term political gains. Yet, even that is almost beside the point in this case.

The opposition has, for some time but particularly recently, been accusing the government of being unable to put up a real and effective fight against corruption. In the same breath it accuses the Permanent Commission Against Corruption of being impotent. However, when Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi makes what was probably the only concrete suggestion in the parliamentary debate on the driving licences scandal, Dr Sant remains mum.

Irrespective of how the Prime Minister handled, or mishandled, the aftermath of the scandal in question, one ought to give it to Dr Gonzi that, notwithstanding the fact that it had been a Nationalist government that had set it up in 1988, he did not mind acknowledging, even if by implication, that the Permanent Commission Against Corruption needs an overhaul.

"Let us discuss how the Permanent Commission Against Corruption can be independent, how it can be free from any interference and how it can have all necessary resources. Let's do so because it's in our interest," Dr Gonzi said in Parliament.

He suggested the setting up of a four-member committee of the House - two from each side - to address the issue.

The Prime Minister, of course, is well aware that allegations of corruption are always harmful. It's not only because mud tends to stick, but mainly because institutions over which a shadow has been cast are likely to find the going much tougher than it normally is. In addition, Dr Gonzi is also fully aware that, just as in the case of financial services, full bi-partisan collaboration in the fight against corruption can only make for a more robust approach.

There can be no doubt that governments must leave no stone unturned in ensuring that both elected and public officers do not allow their private interests and affiliations to compromise official decision-making and public management. The alternative to that would be a weak administration that enjoys little if any public trust.

That the cleanest possible public administration prevails is in the interest of both the government and the opposition, the second being the government-in-waiting. Which, to return to Dr Gonzi's offer, makes one wonder why the opposition did not react immediately. Does it have other ideas? Does it harbour different views on what a public administration should be like? Perhaps, it does not yet consider itself the government-in-waiting?

Having said all that, it takes more than just the government and the opposition in fighting corruption constantly and effectively. The media and society have a crucial role to play too. And this ought to be borne in mind when/if the law setting up the Permanent Commission Against Corruption is amended... hopefully soon.