Infantile doldrums instead of serious exchange

One of the main good things about our parliamentary system and social interchange is that the government is subject to scrutiny of all its actions. It is not always as open and transparent as necessary, as was seen in the foolish way in which the Cabinet gave a massive pay rise to itself. Not only did it not announce it. It did not even seek clear budgetary approval as financial practice demands.

To make things worse the Prime Minister keeps on trying to bluff his way through the morass he created, and regarding which he attracted practically universal disapproval. Criticism came from within his own party, bar some sycophants who see no merit in recognising one’s mistakes.

That was, in reality, an exception to the rule and served to prove how wise it is not to try subterfuge, to sidestep transparency, since in the end everything is revealed.

Such aberrations aside, Malta has in place institutional means to hold the government to account. Foremost among them is the House of Representatives itself, whose twin role is to act as a watchdog over the government and to legislate.

The House passes part of its functions to the Public Accounts Committee, which is also a watchdog on the government’s financial transactions. There is institutional monitoring too. The office of the public auditor exists to oversee the workings of the Treasury, to ensure that the revenue and expenditure functions are carried out according to the financial regulations.

The auditor acts on his own initiative, and regularly publishes the results of specific exercises, in addition to a detailed annual report on the government’s financial operations. In addition, he may be requested by the Public Accounts Committee to carry out specific tasks, even of an investigative nature. And, within the Public Accounts Committee, although the opposition of the day is in a minority, it has the right, unless it is undemocratically blocked, to indicate areas to be probed by the public auditor.

Outside these institutional trappings there are the normal workings of the democratic process. Through it, the media and the public comment on the government’s actions and inactions and request explanations. It is a careless government that does not give public opinion the satisfaction it demands, as the government party tends to find at election time.

Beyond that is the public arena where the government and opposition lock horns. The opposition of the day, active though it may be in the House of Representatives, uses that arena to engage the government on topical issues, including those of a financial nature. This function tends to be adversarial. But is in the interest of the government itself to be criticised and held to account, and of the public too. Unfortunately, it does not always work that way.

The current situation is that the opposition has two very able spokesmen on the economic and financial sectors, Karmenu Vella and Charles Mangion. They do not simply criticise, through media releases and conferences as well as articles. They do so with sense, albeit intermingled with political flavour, as is the nature of the game. Unfortunately the government, rather than using this platform for intelligent exchange is tending to concentrate on the partisan flavour part.

The most recent example was reflected in a report in this newspaper on August 10, entitled “Growing economy not reflected in better wages, Labour Party says”. Karmenu Vella had issued a detailed press release with telling points. He said that the government was falling behind its fiscal targets. Public finances had been on a downward trend since 2004, well before the international recession of 2008-09.

In 2004 the Prime Minister undertook to turn the budgetary deficit into a €60 million surplus by 2010, but went wide off the mark. The public debt had increased by a fifth instead of declining. As a proportion of GDP it went up to 68 per cent in 2010, from 62 per cent in 2007. When government-guaranteed debt is included the ratio goes up to 84 per cent, said the Labour spokesman. This showed the public debt was rising faster than (nominal) economic growth.

Facts and figures should be countered with same to be convincing. Instead the Ministry of Finance blazed away with an accusation that the opposition was being irresponsible when it raised doubts about the country’s financial situation. It said the opposition’s lack of a clear fiscal policy or strategy was evident in its criticism. It said the country’s financial situation was sound and that was why it did not need to take austerity measures like other European countries.

This unwise preening is easily pricked. It is enough to point out employers’ warnings that a second pensions’ pillar should not be introduced at this stage. Had their situation been as flush as the government says, they would surely have preferred not to be seen as Scrooges. The unbalanced state of economic growth is another factor suggesting that the government should be less superficial with its claims.

But that is not my point, which is that we lack important serious exchange. Government and opposition will do their best to disagree, rather than to sincerely seek consensus. Intelligent exchange of views will not necessarily lead to consensus. At least it would show that we have the ability to propose and pursue alternative policies without sinking to the perennial infantile doldrums.