The reputable German think-tank, Bertelsmann Stiftung, recently released its fourth edition of what it rather heavily calls its Sustainable Governance Indicators. The document consists of a survey of 41 OECD and EU countries analysing “each country’s future viability” based on 140 quantitative and qualitative indicators and covering governance, democracy and policy performance.
The survey included the EU-28 countries, as well as 13 OECD countries as diverse and rich as the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, and emerging countries like Mexico, Chile and Turkey.
More than a hundred experts around the world contributed to this major study. The methodology employed is designed so far as possible to apply a uniform set of measurements to iron out subjective judgements by a combination of qualitative assessments by country experts and quantitative data drawn from official sources.
The assessments go through an intensive six-stage peer-review process, starting with the “first country expert” writing a draft report based on a standard questionnaire, scoring on a scale from 1 to 10. The “second country expert” reviews this report, making comments and providing complementary alternative input to the content. He or she also provides independent scores. Thirdly, the “country coordinator” mediates between the first two experts to ensure a balanced report, and also provides his or her own score.
The 2015 Sustainable Government Indicators for Malta were assessed by leading academics Godfrey Pirotta, Isabelle Calleja and coordinator Cesar Colino.
The final three stages consist of a calibration of assessments by eight “inter-regional coordinators”, an overall assessment by an advisory board comprising renowned scholars, and rigorous editing before publication.
While no such analysis is flawless, the Bertelsmann Stiftung methodology is probably as close as one can get to an objective and accurate assessment of a country’s sustainable governance.
The study assesses each country’s development based on three pillars. The Policy Performance Index measures 16 policy areas covering economic, social and environmental issues. The Democracy Index examines how each country compares in quality of democracy and the rule of law. And the Governance Index studies how well advanced are the countries’ reform and governance capacities.
The very thorough individual country reports shed light on each of the 41 countries’ strengths and weaknesses. They highlight any need for reform and their capacity to address the most pressing challenges that they face today: e.g. demographic change, growing social inequalities, hard-pressed resources, the need for structural reforms, and so on.
Each of these sustainability policy areas and indices are scored from one to 10 and each country is ranked in order from one to 41.
Malta’s performance is mediocre. Our average score across all sectors is 5.43 and our ranking is 33rd out of 41 countries.
This includes being 31st in both policy performance and governance and an embarrassing 38th out of 41 for quality of democracy. Overall, we are ahead of the likes of Romania, Croatia, Cyprus, Turkey, Bulgaria and Hungary, but even lag behind Greece.
Malta should not accept as good enough that it lies just eight places from the bottom in the international rankings and obtains a bare pass mark overall
In language which is all the more powerful for being dry and restrained (perhaps sometimes too restrained), the executive summary encapsulates Malta’s problems clearly.
“Malta continues to present a complex picture. As a working democracy, the country has few legal restrictions on candidacy, elections are free and fair, the courts protect political and civil liberties effectively, the media has become more free and pluralistic, and media access has increased for political parties and candidates.
“Malta also performs well on issues of legal certainty and judicial review, andthe country’s National Audit Office and Ombudsman Office contribute significantly to transparency and accountabilityof government.
“Yet some issues still persist. The method of electing the president by a simple parliamentary majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, continues to create division between the parties. Malta also has no process of popular decision-making, such as referenda [constitutional, consultative and abrogative don’t count]. The Constitutional Court can declare a law invalid, but has no power to revoke laws. The prime minister holds the sole responsibility of appointing [judges]. Allegations of political discrimination are still common. And crucially for citizens, access to government information remains restricted.
“Malta is also the only European state with only two political parties represented in parliament, and there are no thresholds to assist smaller parties in gaining parliamentary representation. The result of this set-up is an entrenched two-party system that, while facilitating stability, also promotes patronage and the overall perception that politics is a zero-sum game. The government appointed in 2013 tried to mitigate this by appointing a handful of former opposition activists to government positions, but pressure from within its own party limited the effectiveness of this attempt.
“Parliament remains weak, and still lacks the resources and powers necessary to carry out its oversight function effectively. Political parties remain the principal drivers of policy formulation and evaluation, while the Parliament has not institutionalised its interactions with interest associations [presumably, civil lobby groups]. Although other interest associations have grown in importance, business and trade unions remain the most important. Parties’ use of parliamentary committees tend to undermine the proper functioning of the institution.
“The tendency by governments to prioritise political over economic considerations can have a negative economic impact. In the last two years, Malta has fallen in line with EU budget-deficit regulations, albeit conditionally. Presently, health care is the economy’s Achilles heel, requiring significant expenditures from the government. These issues are compounded by rampant tax evasion, a particular problem since Malta’s lack of other resources means that tax revenue is its sole income source supporting public expenditure.
“The island needs to address its near-total dependence on oil imports, the problems caused by dwindling water resources, and the high cost of providing water through reverse-osmosis plants. In addressing these and other problems, Malta’s approach is hindered by lack of strategic capacity and coordination at most levels and this in turn restricts its strategic planning. Despite a determination to wean Malta off its total dependence on oil imports, a new projected gas-fired power station has fallen seriously behind schedule.”
The report was published before discussions on the new environmental planning structures could be evaluated.
The understated picture that emerges is of a country whose “democratic foundations are strong”, but where key challenges still confront it. Parliamentary and constitutional reform to introduce greater checks on the power of the executive remain critical. Anti-corruption reforms and the application of the rule of law are crucial to the retention of public trust, which has been badly dented. Malta’s continued financial stability demands attention. Expenditure on health, and public corporations’ debt held by Enemalta and Transport Malta, must be reined in. The future of Air Malta hangs by a thread.
Malta must implement clear integration policies for immigrants of all ethnicities. The pressure on Malta’s few remaining rural spaces and the uglification of the urban infrastructure must cease. Strengthening the government’s strategic capacity and rebuilding public trust in the Maltese civil service though greater meritocracy and transparency are vital.
Malta should not accept as good enough that it lies just eight places from the bottom in the international rankings and obtains a bare pass mark overall. I dare say, however, that its smug complacency and self-satisfaction will nonetheless prevail.