The story of Icarus – who flew so high that the heat of the sun melted the wax of his wings, causing his death - is a sobering reminder of unjustified self-confidence and the abuse of power. Such behaviour is often described as ‘hubris’.

Hubris has come to refer to recklessness and overconfidence by those who wield power. Far more than simply being ‘pride before the fall’, hubris is the pride that causes the fall. It is characterised by arrogance, overwhelming self-assertiveness and a disregard for others.

It often involves an overestimation of one’s own competence and capabilities, which result in a leader’s misinterpretation of reality. This can lead to his making unwise and risky decisions to the detriment of the people he is meant to serve.

The last two decades have seen demonstrations of hubris on an epic scale. It is now unarguable that the great financial crash in 2008 was caused by hubris. Bankers and financial leaders, driven by greed and reckless overconfidence, overstepped the bounds of their mandate.

The wars waged by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan were examples of a political leader whose power distorted his thinking and judgement, leading to his ignoring the limits of legality, taking high risks resulting in thousands of lives lost in unnecessary conflicts.

Tony Blair who - like our Prime Minister - was elected with one of the largest majorities in British electoral post-war history, increasingly came to overestimate his own competence and capabilities. These led him into the ill-judged alliance with Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

Hubris may be exhibited not only by a person in power but also by his or her associates. We have only to recall the reckless way Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were accomplices in Bush’s ill-judged wars. And then consider the Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri parallels.

Hubris tends to spread rapidly beyond the leaders themselves to infect the ruling party, the wider government and their supporters, all of whom exhibit identical behaviour. We have seen, both with this government and its Nationalist predecessor, the way so-called ministerial secretariats tend to wield power well beyond their formal responsibilities.

A stunning majority for Labour three years ago must have led the Prime Minister to feel he was invincible. Today, one cannot help noticing in the way he has handled the ill-judged and highly suspicious involvement of his two closest advisers in government - with dodgy accounts in shady financial tax havens - a creeping arrogance in the exercise of power.

Despite his ringside seat of what this did to the Gonzi administration of 2008 to 2013, the Prime Minister still finds himself committing the same mistakes.

There is now a growing body of medical opinion showing that the accumulation and exercise of power can distort thinking and create personality changes in leaders, thus affecting their decision-making. High confidence in their own vision and a feeling of embodiment of their nation’s aspirations are the very same qualities which make it extremely difficult for leaders to accept that they are not indispensable – or invariably right.

The concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister is unhealthy

The greater the power, the greater the risk of what doctors call “cognitive distortions” taking hold. As we had seen during the financial crash in 2008, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outcome leads to worse devastation when things go wrong, as they surely must when contact with reality is lost.

The refusal by the Prime Minister to demand the resignation of Minister Konrad Mizzi and, instead, to retain him as a Cabinet minister without portfolio, together with the retention of his chief of staff - who is also deeply implicated in the unsavoury Panama Papers - on the grounds that he occupies a position of ‘trust’, are examples of hubristic leadership.

It leads ineluctably to loss of the trust of the people who elected them. The reappointment to the Cabinet of the disgraced (and disgraceful) Manuel Mallia is the epitome of cognitive distortion.

There is a dichotomy at work here. While we badly need leaders who can withstand the stresses of their job, medical science has shown that power is also a two-edged sword. While it emboldens leaders and makes them more decisive, if unconstrained it has been shown to lead to impaired judgement, delusions of indispensability, risk-taking and recklessness.

This is the dark side of power, which derives from its mind-changing effects on the people who hold it. It leads to the reluctance of subordinates to criticise or question the leader’s judgement, prompting a disdain on his part for the views of others.

What are the tools for curbing the excessive power of leaders? The need for political leaders to have Cabinet ministers, civil servants and advisers around them who are prepared to criticise and to disagree with them is crucial.

The tools and checks and balances of democracy, such as free elections, limited terms in office, a free press and an independent judiciary are the constraints on power which act like antidotes to the venom of excessive power.

But even in countries with very strong institutional constraints – such as the US and the UK – leaders have still fallen prey to the symptoms of hubris. It was only the democratic tools of elections (or Richard Nixon’s impeachment) that forced power to be transferred to new leaders.

This is why we need to ensure that Malta’s 50-year-old Constitution and the checks and balances it contains are still fit for purpose. Successful democracy requires the two pillars of a cohesive working State and the rule of law to be firmly established. Democracy cannot flourish properly without a competent State.

The kernel of the challenge stems from the accumulation of powers in the executive and, specifically, the office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of Malta has effective control over all the levers of government. In practice, all power is vested in him.

The concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister is unhealthy. He appoints the Cabinet. The executive controls the House of Representatives (the legislature) through its electoral majority. Members of the judiciary, the third arm of government, are selected and appointed by the executive. The separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary sadly exists only on paper.

Malta must be careful that Cabinet government is not replaced by prime ministerial government. There is a risk that the conjunction of circumstances that brought Joseph Muscat to power – a massive electoral majority, a united party, an overweening personal authority – is leading him down that path.

The notion that winning the election entitles the Prime Minister to do whatever he pleases has taken hold. L’etat c’est mois.

It would be salutary, and not too late, for him to recognise that this is a mistake. His handling of the Panamagate debacle proves it. Once the political circumstances change - as they have done dramatically, rapidly and unexpectedly - then so does the centre of gravity within government.

The truth is that any Prime Minister is both commanding and vulnerable.

History repeatedly shows us that he may dominate the political landscape today. But, be warned, this does not mean he is in secure and permanent control of all that he surveys tomorrow.