Making a hash of things

In a democracy, top civil servants publicly steer clear of national disagreements on public policy – even more so when there is political controversy in­volved – and definitely must not take sides.

The latest formalisation of this position lies in directive No. 5, issued on February 24, 2011 by the office of the Principal Permanent Secretary: “ ...public officers occupying posts that are classified as ‘politically restricted’ are required to ... abstain from any public manifestation of their views which might associate them with any political party...”

This rule of the game has now changed. The post of deputy secretary to the Cabinet falls under the “politically restricted” category. The divorce issue is a policy plank of national controversy, rendered also political when the governing Nationalist Party declared officially it is against divorce legislation. Still, the deputy Cabinet secretary has been given two months’ leave in order to campaign against the introduction of the said law. Partisanship is about supporting a party, a person or cause. In this case, there is a top-ranking civil servant publicly supporting and campaigning for a cause in favour of a stand taken by a political party.

His bosses, the Prime Minister and the Principal Permanent Secretary obviously see nothing wrong in this, otherwise they wouldn’t have authorised the leave and given the green light for the deputy Cabinet secretary to be active in a matter of policy upon which there is national disagreement. This attracted criticism from the Labour Party, among others, while the Prime Minister and leader of the Nationalist Party commended the officer for his stance.

In his book Breaking The Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers And Parliament, public administration expert Donald Savoie (2003) argues that when public officers are constructively attacked publicly by one political party and praised by another it is a problem for public service impartiality. In practice, impartiality means that public officers, in such instances, refrain from voicing opinions and positions and from acting in ways which show a bias in favour or against a particular course of action.

But this is not the only occurrence where things are getting out of hand, defying logic, and where emotion is clouding clear thinking in this field of public policy.

A year ago I had written about an interview which Lino Spiteri gave to Campus FM whereby he had stated: “I am very sad about the 1960s... in spite of what our country went through in the 1930s, we had to go through it again in the 1960s. I would say never again... I’m sorry but it’s not going to be like that... moral issues will be brought in. There is going to be a lot of chattering on divorce. While the Church will not interfere as much as in the 1930s and 1960s, we will have a situation which we shouldn’t have. We haven’t learnt enough.” How true this is turning out to be.

As predicted, things are not as in-your-face as half a century ago. People are more educated today in contrast to 50 years ago and, thus, propaganda has been adjusted accordingly. But it is just as strong nonetheless. Confusion between Church and state is advertently created, rendering their separation only theoretical. What the Church wants is legislated into life – take, for instance, how the law on civil marriage was weakened and the Church brought into civil law – what it does not want will quietly disappear, even if for the time being, as we may soon see.

In 1961, Dom Mintoff had written that “if a line could ever divide religion and politics, only the bishops had a right to draw it”. How right he was but to think that this is still relevant today says a lot about our supposedly secular state.

In the same period, during his 1960 campaign for the presidency of the US, John F. Kennedy drew the said line between Church and state very clearly: “... contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters; and the Church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

Here, we continue insisting on making a hash of things.

Dr Dalli is the opposition’s spokesman on the public service and gender equality.