During the no confidence debate on Konrad Mizzi last week, Mizzi’s colleague Deborah Schembri rose in Parliament to give us all a lecture on good proportion. She said that Mizzi has already done something unprecedented for a minister: he’s apologised for his secret company in Panama; so let’s keep things in proportion and not exaggerate by demanding his sacking.

If rational debate in Parliament is increasingly an oxymoron, then what are the MPs who have spoken on Mizzi’s behalf? Proxymorons?

It’s so easy to dismiss Schembri’s arguments, that one can miss the more insidious implications for democracy and political justice.

Yes, her argument can be dismissed by pointing out that Mizzi’s resignation is considered proportionate by a former leader of the Labour Party, and a former European Commissioner and Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Monti, and indeed by mainstream Europe.

Yes, even if we are unused to ministerial apologies, that doesn’t mean that we should have to continue to wallow in the muck of low standards and self-esteem.

And, yes, a genuine apology in the circumstances of Panamagate would be a resignation. Words alone are no real apology.

But there is something more taking place: a gradual redefinition of what counts as normal accountability, transparency and democracy.

In the slush of excuses, evasions and dissembling that Panamagate has directed our way, there has also been a raft of pseudo-principles enunciated by Mizzi, Keith Schembri and Joseph Muscat.

Almost every time they defended themselves, they invoked a liberal or democratic doctrine intended to justify their action (or inaction). Just as Schembri invoked the proportionality of justice, for example, Mizzi invoked democracy when refusing to answer further questions by this newspaper, on the grounds that he will leave it to ‘the people’ to judge him.

The problem is that these doctrines have been invoked in a perverse manner, which threatens to undermine the doctrines themselves. Should they outlive Panamagate and set a precedent, they will hollow out our system (such as it is) of accountability. And, since it’s not the first time these doctrines have been invoked in this perverse manner, there is every reason to think that a backsliding of our norms is already taking place.

Take proportionality, where Mizzi and friends have decided to dictate that a one-sentence apology should be enough to make up for all the damage done by Mizzi’s disgraceful behaviour.

It’s not the first time that what we should accept as proportionate atonement has been decided by the perpetrator and his associates. In 2014, Cyrus Engerer and Joseph Muscat decided that, following Engerer’s two-year suspended sentence for revenge porn, Engerer’s withdrawal from the European Parliament elections was enough. We’re still being told today that, with that act, Engerer paid his dues.

Think about that. He didn’t resign an EP seat. He simply withdrew from a race that was already very tight. The guilty verdict might well have destroyed his electoral chances as well as had a backlash on Labour. In withdrawing, he did Labour a favour. But we are still told, matter-of-factly, that that counted as punishment. So it’s all right for him to be given a plum post in Brussels.

That’s not all. The same people defending Mizzi and Engerer also demanded (and got) the former health minister Joe Cassar’s resignation from Parliament for having accepted free works on his house.

Cassar himself denies that he ever treated the works as a gift but let’s say he was guilty as charged. It means that, in the space of two years, the government has insisted on the following as proportionate:

Revenge porn is atoned for by withdrawal from an electoral race one was likely to lose.

In withdrawing, Cyrus Engerer did Labour a favour. But we are still told, matter-of-factly, that that counted as punishment

A secret company in Panama, opened while one is minister, with at least nine attempts to open a bank account… that is atoned for with an apology.

Free works on security cameras for one’s home: that calls for nothing less than the end of one’s political career.

There’s more. When, after the vote, this newspaper asked Mizzi a few more questions, he brushed them aside, said that he had nothing more to say, and that he would let the people decide.

In other words, Mizzi has decided he doesn’t need to face more press scrutiny on Panamagate. He invokes popular sovereignty – but only to deny voters some of the information they need to make up their minds.

The democratic principle of press scrutiny has also been undermined by invoking the liberal separation between the public and the private. Or rather, a distortion of the public-private distinction.

Just because things take place in one’s private life doesn’t mean that there is no public interest involved. If a politician’s philandering endangers national security (as John F. Kennedy’s womanising did on at least two occasions), then there is a public right to inquire and know.

However, the Prime Minister’s top aide, Keith Schembri, has fobbed off questions about his own Panama company by claiming that his actions were those of a family man and that questions were thus out of place. The pursuit of private family interests does not rule out a public interest. He is one of the most senior public servants. Concerns about Panama companies are legitimate. That’s not some idiosyncratic standard of the Maltese fishbowl. It’s the international standard.

The Prime Minister has aided and abetted the avoidance of scrutiny, saying that Schembri is not a politician. Muscat stopped just short of saying Schembri is not a public servant. Muscat justified not taking any action against Schembri by saying that the latter’s position depends simply on whether Muscat trusts him or not.

Once more, the argument is made matter-of-factly, as though it’s obvious and the people demanding answers are confused about what ‘positions of trust’ mean.

But it’s the standards we’re being asked to accept that are twisted. Schembri is paid out of public money, not Muscat’s pocket. He’s a public servant even if appointed on the basis of trust. The way you’re recruited doesn’t change the nature of the role.

Under the law – ours and the world’s – Schembri is a Politically Exposed Person. Schembri had to bow to that standard when seeking to open bank accounts for his Panama company. But he rejects our right to employ that same standard.

The fallout from Panamagate goes beyond the damage done to Malta’s financial services and our national reputation. It goes beyond the damage done to the government.

Damage has also been done to our system of government. The pseudo-principles invoked to justify the actions of Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, and the inaction of Muscat, are principles that substitute international standards with only-in-Malta standards. We let them pass without comment at our own risk.