The government’s three years in office have been marked by a succession of public appointments in which party colour, rather than quality or merit, has dominated the selection process. Meritocracy was promised in the months before the election; cronyism and patronage were to become things of the past.
Instead, there was a clean sweep of virtually every previous public appointee, the removal and redeployment of almost 80 per cent of the permanent secretaries, a scandalous coup d’etat against the leadership of the AFM and the replacement of almost all top ambassadorial posts, chairmen and members of State entities.
The moves have been politically provocative and have, as forecast, come to haunt the government. The pre-election promises of meritocracy have been betrayed. The assumption that political loyalty alone is a test of competence has been found wanting.
The way the Prime Minister has handled public appointments has been a major blot on the government’s record. His approach has left every right-thinking, independent-minded person (those, indeed, who form the bulk of the floating voters) with a feeling that they were conned.
Rightly grasping that this was the government’s Achilles heel, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil has consistently attacked the abuse of executive power which these appointments exposed and the concomitant incompetence which has often followed. Last month, he launched a document, ‘Restoring trust in politics’, which set out a comprehensive set of proposals for introducing good governance to Malta under a Nationalist government.
Busuttil’s good governance document includes measures “aimed at addressing alleged corruption, fraud, conflict of interest, incompetence, irregularities, clientelism, nepotism and discriminatory practices in government”.
Many commentators have pointed out that the Nationalists in power were equally culpable and venial. They undoubtedly were. Indeed, it was precisely this that brought them down three years ago.
But this is no reason for not supporting what Busuttil is promising to do if elected.
The test of any political party is whether it can claim to speak for the country.
It’s about aspiring to lead not just the party’s core supporters but also every part of society. On this issue, Busuttil has undeniably struck a chord. Good governance affects everybody.
Two key questions arise. First, are Busuttil’s proposals credible and hitting the right targets? Secondly, would Busuttil pass the ‘Polidano test’?
‘Restoring trust in politics’ is a document with the scattergun approach which has so far marked Busuttil’s tenure as Opposition leader. Like a scorned lover, he has sought out and listed every slight against good governance – some important, many less so – and promised a remedy.
The 109 proposals in the document are organised into 10 chapters, ranging from democratic scrutiny to transparency, public appointments, citizens’ rights and others. There are many good proposals but there are also some which should be ditched as they are populist or positively unworkable, such as the establishment of a Ministry for Citizens’ Rights.
Simon Busuttil is addressing what is to be done by a new, truly radical Nationalist administration
The word ‘corruption’ and steps to counter it barely feature, although this lies at the core of Malta’s poor governance. Neither does the review of the Constitution, currently stalled because of the immaturity of both political leaders, who are engaged in a macho stand-off about who runs the Constitutional Convention instead of looking for constructive compromise.
When Busuttil comes to finalising his proposals he would do well to focus on four key areas: a review of the Constitution to ensure there are greater controls placed on the executive and better checks and balances; effective steps to counter corruption and maintain public ethical standards, including the establishment of an independently powerful Parliamentary Commissioner For Standards in Public Life; proper scrutiny by Parliament of all senior public appointments; and a more potent Freedom of Information Act that would ensure transparency and prevent governments from hiding behind spurious excuses of confidentiality.
As to the ‘Polidano test’, this is quite straightforward. Good governance is not only about institutions and good administration, but it is also about political will and leadership.
Construction magnate Charles Polidano (Iċ-Ċaqnu) has flouted the planning law with impunity. If he were prime minister, would Busuttil immediately apply the law and enforce the many planning contraventions which have allowed Polidano to cover an area of about 64,000 square metres with unlawful structures, including a replica knights’ tower, a faux-classical style building, a zoo and a four-storey ‘edifice’ being used as a cafeteria?
Yes or no? No shilly-shallying, no ifs or buts, no resort to legalistic circumlocutions. Will Polidano’s days of cocking a snook at successive governments be ended? Will the illegal structures be merely ‘sanctioned’ or demolished?
Unless Busuttil can unequivocally and satisfactorily answer the Polidano test we would have to conclude that he is unwilling to take the hard decisions to change the Maltese culture, which is the fount of all our governance problems. There are many other examples of the Polidano test (readers will no doubt supply their own) but this perhaps is the most egregious.
How does Busuttil demonstrate convincingly that his party is not already storing up promises of rewards to their apparatchiks when their place in the sun comes around again in two or seven years’ time?
How does Busuttil demonstrate that his promise to restore trust in government is not simply ‘oppositionism’?
Oppositionism is rhetoric, pretend-anger, joining marches, PN blogger storms, social media headlines. It makes core supporters feel good about themselves, at least for a time. It gives them a feeling of being on the right side. It’s a pathway to real politics. But it isn’t the thing itself.
Opposition, by contrast, does not simply attack government policy. It proposes clear, workable, fundable alternatives. Opposition watches and listens intently. It sees a bogus argument and takes it apart. It forces arrogant ministers to pause for thought. It highlights abuse of power and shows how to curb it.
Opposition is essential to effective parliamentary politics.
Political respect does not come from speech-making or likeability. Political respect is earned by politicians who work hard on hard issues and who, because they are prepared to exercise political will, achieve real change.
For the first time perhaps since Busuttil became leader of the Opposition he is demonstrating with this set of proposals that he might be a credible alternative. He is addressing what is to be done by a new, truly radical Nationalist administration to break the cycle of cronyism and patronage based on political colour, which is what thinking people want. A government should exercise its mandate in the interests of the many, not the few. In the long-term interests of the country as a whole, not sectoral interests within it.
At their heart, Busuttil’s proposals ask whether Malta is a genuinely rule-based democracy or does it place too much emphasis on tribal elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy? Is respect for the rule of law solidly underpinned by robust institutions to apply it, with proper checks and balances on the executive, and open, transparent and accountable government to bolster the fight against corruption?
The Irish novelist Joyce Carey said: “The only good government is a bad one in a hell of a fright.” The Prime Minister and his Cabinet need to be nervous. Busuttil’s proposals for restoring trust in government are on the right lines. They may even cause this government belatedly to improve its performance.