It might seem odd to have to explain why corruption matters. It’s public corruption – the use of public office for private individual, corporate or partisan gain – that I have especially in mind. But the thing about corruption is that it spreads: it corrupts even how we view it.

The more of it there is, the less of it we see: the more we shrug when we come across it. It comes to seem a part of universal, sinful human nature, not of rotting institutions that can be fixed if we summon enough political will.

Although we’re only halfway through 2015, this year promises to be a bumper year for claims of rife public corruption in Malta. We’ve heard tales of graft and nepotism that cover just about every institution, from the government to the police force to banks, from small-time fixers to crime syndicates. Will all that make us more indignant or more blasé?

It helps to adjust our vision by looking at other societies. An interesting story is told by the Perception of Corruption Index reports, published by Transparency International, over the last 10 years.

In 2014 (the last reported year), Malta shared the 43rd to 46th places out of 174 countries. That might not seem too bad until we have a look at the trend.

In 2005, we ranked 25th (out of 158, that is, 16 fewer countries than in 2014, although that does not explain the difference). In 2008, we had slid down to 36th place (out of a larger total of 180).

By 2012, we had slid further to 43rd place (out of 174).

During this slide, some movement occurred among the countries above us; some rose, others slipped. But, as far as I can see, no country above us in 2005 ever slid past us. Meanwhile, several countries overtook us.

Relative to 2005, in 2008 we were overtaken by, among others, countries like Uruguay, Qatar, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates and Botswana. In 2012, the countries surging past us included Bhutan, Puerto Rico and Poland.

During the same decade, Cyprus was also being assessed. In 2005, it trailed us by 12 places. Today, it’s us that trail it by the same margin.

Is our slide meaningful?

Lawrence Gonzi, the prime minister for much of the time when this dramatic slide was taking place, used to say that actual corruption is one thing while perception is another. The index doesn’t necessarily confirm a country is becoming more corrupt.

He’s right, of course. Transparency International itself only relies on perceptions as a second-best indicator: actual corruption is difficult to establish because it tends to be hidden or limited to hearsay. The index itself has been criticised for drawing largely on the perceptions of elites (business and opinion leaders), who might themselves be part of the web of corruption.

Gonzi used to say that Malta’s sliding place was affected by Labour’s tireless propaganda machine.

Corruption spreads: it corrupts even how we view it

Although the index isn’t perfect, it’s hardly random. The last 20 places are always occupied by countries with failing and failed states, some of them mired in war. The first 20 places are almost all occupied by advanced, affluent, democratic societies.

These results tally well with what detailed studies of corruption show.

Corruption is the worst enemy of democracy after war.

It’s not just anti-democratic but it is also bad for the economy. As the World Bank insists, it’s anti-growth.

Where does that leave Malta in 2015?

The report for 2014 puts us, more or less, in the same position as 2012 (less rather than more, since in 2014 we’re sharing 46th place as much as 43rd; while we were plain 45th in 2013, down two places over the previous year).

It would be naïve to read this as stability. It’s an indictment of both political parties of government.

Joseph Muscat’s government has not been able to perform better than the Gonzi government at its weakest – a government he excoriated for corruption. But the Opposition – at least until the report for 2015 is released, if then – cannot point to Muscat’s excesses without someone turning round and saying that its score on (perceived) sleaze in the last full year of its government is the same as Muscat’s.

The Maltese public does not escape indictment, either. The slide down the index has taken place with relatively little public action.

Until the shock of systemic mafia involvement in our economy, instances of blatant corruption have tended to receive the shrug treatment (after, perhaps, some short-term attention).

The mafia is regarded differently. While everyday corruption can be shrugged away as an unofficial tax, or something that won’t affect us personally, we know enough about mafias to be able to tell that its grip will corrode not just our economy but also our democracy.

However, corruption is dangerous for our entire way of life even if we get rid of crime syndicates.

It’s anti-democratic because it excludes many from real decision-making. It increases the likelihood of a slide to systematic violence because some people have too much to lose.

It’s anti-growth because it does more than add costs for businesses. It scares away the most reliable investors. There are fewer resources for public welfare – for health and education. Corruption is linked to a rise in inequalities. Decisions are no longer taken in the light of what’s objectively best but because of what’s best for the officials or politicians taking the decision.

With consequences like these, we cannot afford shrugs. We must – of course – continue to be aware of the critical distinction between claims of corruption and actual corruption. But the best way to sort out the two is to discuss each case thoroughly and insist on impartial investigation when plausible claims are made.

It would be banal to say that the media have a crucial role to play were it not for two things.

First, competition between media organisations at times stops them from picking up grave stories from one another. That is a form of corruption: it sacrifices public interest for the sake of private profit.

Second, many of our fellow EU member states have more robust democracies because the media can be relied on to pursue a story to its end and not just for several days. They do this by keeping a story in the news and by sharing their own firm editorial opinion, demanding specific action, in addition to providing reports.

It’s tempting to respond by saying that one can’t pronounce on every case, since there are so many. But that’s exactly the process by which corruption claims get to be discounted – how our own civic vision becomes corrupted.

If the media don’t think specific corruption claims matter enough to warrant an opinion (whether to excoriate the corrupt or even the ones making grave claims frivolously), that does not make them impartial. It makes them, at best, detached; at worst, complicit.

ranierfsadni@europe.com