In classical Greece, the philosopher Pythagoras divided men attending the Olympic Games into three general types: the spectators, the competitors, and the traders who come to buy and sell. He rated the spectators highest. Others also rate competitors highly, as men of action, not just contemplation.
Extrapolated to Parliament, the first type attempt to think and understand, the second seek honour and glory, and the third are motivated by personal gain.
Personal interest is the lowest motive for politicians. Unfortunately some forget that they are not elected to promote themselves.
Ancient philosophers were very interested in ethics, in all spheres of life. Ethics means thinking about what is good or bad. On the basis of these conclusions, codes of ethics can be developed to help guide standards of behaviour.
Until recently, the Code of Ethics for members of Cabinet stated that ministers and parliamentary secretaries should not work privately during their period in office. There are solid reasons for this.
Cabinet members should not be focusing attention, time and energy on serving private clients, but should concentrate on serving all citizens. Private work takes a minister’s time and attention away from the demands of government duties.
In 2013, Joseph Muscat was criticised for allowing members of his Cabinet to carry out private work, which was out of line with their Code of Ethics. To wriggle out of the problem he has shifted the goal posts and amended the Code of Ethics to accommodate private practice if it is “in the national interest”.
Accepting to be a member of Cabinet is a solemn responsibility. It is in the national interest that ministers and parliamentary secretaries are fully committed to their duties.
Arbitrary amendments to the Code of Ethics may provide convenient excuses for inappropriate behaviour, but they do not alter ethical principles. Our understanding of ethical behaviour is based on a set of shared values, not a haphazard list of written rules.
Cabinet ministers are expected to be fully committed to governing the country. Tweaking the Code of Ethics to insert a few loopholes and vague statements does not change that expectation. Ethics is about what is right and wrong; it is about the spirit, not the letter.
Trying to be a minister on a part-time basis manifests a lack of respect for the importance and commitment required of a Cabinet post. If any particular MP does not want to be a full-time minister, that’s fair enough, but then the Prime Minister must select someone else to do the job. He cannot accept half measures for the highest positions in the country.
Arbitrary amendments to the Code of Ethics may provide convenient excuses for inappropriate behaviour, but they do not alter ethical principles
Ethics can be a tricky business. One development last week involved Google group discussions with the former Finance shadow minister, and raises the question of whether public officers have the right or not to associate freely with political parties.
Without entering into the merits or details of the case, public officers should clearly not divulge sensitive internal information to anyone. On the other hand, should wrongdoing be hidden? An informed and well-armed Opposition is a vital part of the checks and balances of the country.
Equally, the government should not withhold any information unnecessarily. It should act transparently and publish information readily. People have a right to know what is being done with public resources and how the administration of the country is being handled.
Information has been withheld about major initiatives, such as the IIP passports scheme and the gas power station contracts. Now even the new Code of Ethics for Cabinet ministers has been kept from the public. What could be the reason for that? The urge to hide documents is becoming chronic.
In another case, the CEO of Mepa was instructed to keep the Żonqor site-selection exercise completely confidential, so not even Mepa officers were informed, let alone the public. Again, why should this report have been so secret?
We are being fed a series of lame excuses, none of which seem grounded in much substance, citing the national interest, commercial interests, or vague notions of feasibility or sustainability. This encourages poor governance.
Public officials should be able to associate freely, including with political parties. The line must be drawn, however, when there is a perceived conflict of interest or breach of trust.
Information or influence gained from your employment should obviously not be used for personal gain. Public actions which may compromise the reputation of your organisation must be avoided. For example, appearing on political party billboards to discredit your own employer, as we saw before the last elections, is out of line.
This does not mean that one should stay silent. It is essential for a healthy democracy that people are active and freely engage in public life. The reality is that unless you take your ideas forward with politicians, who ultimately have the power to implement them, you will not get anywhere.
In his Divina Commedia, Dante Alighieri reserved a space just inside the gates of hell for people who never choose good or evil, but always remain neutral. In his vision of the Inferno, these souls are condemned to eternally chase after a banner, and are constantly stung by wasps. Dante held a dim view of people who play their fiddle while Rome burns.
petracdingli@gmail.com