The best executive is one “who has sense enough to pick good people to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they are doing it”. Wise words from US President Theodore Roosevelt.
The Auditor General published two reports which point to excessive meddling by the Prime Minister and Minister Konrad Mizzi respectively in matters that should have been best handled by technocrats.
The Auditor General equated this political interference with bad governance. Even if one accepts the Prime Minister’s argument that all was done in good faith and that the mistakes committed were a result of inexperience, the fact remains that these shortcomings are too serious to be swept away with a half-hearted apology. I have no doubt that, in different circumstances, Joseph Muscat would be demanding his pound of flesh.
Beyond the political responsibilities that were not carried, the events of the past days highlighted the importance of institutions such as the National Audit Office and the Ombudsman in protecting the citizen against the State.
The importance of having independent watchdogs becomes more paramount in a situation where the government has a bigger than usual majority, where the government’s backbench silence has been bought and where the top brass of the public service is politically appointed.
As a country we have already suffered the consequences of poor choice in appointments. Events that occurred in the police force over the past two years are sufficient testimony of that. To use Roosevelt’s words, the government did not have the sense to pick good people and then made things worse by meddling in police affairs.
The result was one fiasco after another, leading to the loss of public trust in the police force. It is going to take time for that trust to be rebuilt. This is one of the side effects of poor governance.
This government is not ready to accept that there are limits to its power
A strong minded Commissioner of Police would have stood his ground in the face of political interference. In so doing, he would have protected both the integrity of the police corps and of the government. Sometimes, ministers need to be told no.
A police commissioner is after all there to serve the public and not the government of the day. If governments cannot be trusted with appointing an independent minded commissioner then perhaps we should reconsider the method of appointment . Why not emulate the method of appointment of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman that has served us well by requiring the approval of two thirds of Parliament?
For indeed, what happened within the police force did not happen with the Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor General. The Ombudsman took the unprecedented step of instituting legal proceedings against the government after the latter failed to provide information requested by the Ombudsman’s office.
Hot on the heels of this legal precedent, the Auditor General produced two reports which strongly criticise the government for poor governance, poor use of public funds and political interference in technical and administrative matters.
Other institutions could or should follow suit. I am referring particularly to the Employment and Training Corporation and the Public Service Commission. These entities should investigate the appointments and recruitment in the public sector, not least the appointments to positions of trust. This exceptional provision is being used by the government to bypass open, transparent and public recruitment procedures.
I do not share the Prime Minister’s view that the shortcomings highlighted by the Auditor General were teething problems. The government made a political calculation. It traded good governance for political gain.
The trade-off failed when, against the government’s intentions, the stories went public. Were it not for the media in the case of the Premier bailout and for the Auditor General in the case of the fuel hedging, these sordid affairs would have remained hidden from public view.
The price of poor governance is high. There is a loss of faith by the public in holders of political and public office. On top of that there is a monetary cost.
In the case of Café Premier, the government ended up paying €4.2 million to retake a property that was already its own when it could have simply filed a summary lawsuit for eviction against the non-paying tenant that had already closed shop. In the case of the hedging on the price of fuel, the minister’s tip led the committee – which was meant to give advice to the minister and not vice versa – to lock in at a price which generated a loss of €6 million that now has to be carried by the taxpayer.
There is also the opportunity cost. All this money that was thrown away could have been put to better use. Would it not have been wiser to use the €4.2 million to help businesses grow rather than fold?
My concern is that, left unchecked, this government can and will evidently do worse. This government is not ready to accept that there are limits to its power.
This is why we need, now more than ever, strong public institutions, the free press and a strong Opposition to draw the line because this government is proving to be incapable of doing so on its own accord.
Acting independently, but ultimately serving the same end, their surveillance will ensure that the rights of Joe Citizen will not be trampled, willingly or unwillingly, by the government.
Mario de Marco is deputy leader for parliamentary affairs of the Nationalist Party.