In recent weeks, the media was awash with stories of allegations of corruption in the public sector. The stories that captured the headlines with consistency related to investigations, and some prosecutions, involving personnel in the Malta Transport Authority, the Malta Maritime Authority and the Ministry of Health.
It has turned out that the public servants in question had been involved in corrupt practices for some time before they were found out and before disciplinary proceedings were instituted.
These incidents reinforced the public perception that corruption in the public sector is endemic and that vigilance against abuse on the part of the government has been weak.
It is the responsibility of ministers to protect the public interest, and law-abiding, tax-paying citizens expect ministers to be the guarantors of clean government. This is what ministerial responsibility is all about.
Robert Musumeci, mayor of Siggiewi and PN candidate, has raised the issue as to whether politicians holding public office should share responsibility for shortcomings attributed to state employees.
He acknowledges that "there is no doubt that a minister, or a parliamentary secretary, is bound by political responsibility, which is taken to mean that the politician is compelled to take the most opportune and corrective actions according to the prevailing circumstances". But he asserts that "this should not be construed to mean that the politician is legally responsible for any incorrect action by third parties employed by the state".
Mr Musumeci has skirted round the issue of ministerial responsibility. A minister's responsibility is political, not legal.
It is not enough for a minister to investigate and to prosecute an underling caught red-handed. He is responsible for the whole government apparatus under his charge. He is politically accountable if he fails to pursue senior civil servants who, for reasons of inertia, incompetence or worse, fail to take adequate measures to ward off corruption.
In the more recent cases, ministers have pounced on the small fry once the evidence surfaced. There has been no evidence of their superiors being held in any way accountable for lack of due diligence... The public perception is that the government has shown no disposition to fight corruption tooth and nail. The official outlook is to let sleeping dogs lie until someone starts to bark - at which point it is by no means certain that the mills of discipline begin to move.
The Mater Dei Hospital project is the most clamorous case in point. This project has been in hand for the best part of the last l7 years and the hospital is not yet in operation. A succession of gross irregularities has made the headlines during the gestation period. The costs of the project have escalated to reach breathtaking levels, and allegations of corruption have been voiced, inter alia, by none other than a former PN president and MP.
Unto this day, there has been no investigation of these charges, much less have any disciplinary proceedings been instituted.
Is this not a clear-cut case where accountability is of the essence, and where the responsible minister is expected to give an account of his stewardship?
The minister is answerable to Parliament and to the electorate. In the face of corruption, the minister's onus is burdensome. In a truly viable democracy, his (or her) office is at stake - either at the Prime Minister's bidding or at the bar of public opinion at election time.