A ‘useful idiot’ is a term used about those commentators in politics who support only one side of an ideological debate. It was first used by Lenin about sympathisers who blindly supported Communist leaders. Eddie Aquilina’s writings in this newspaper over the years have demonstrated that his power of objective analysis has been subordinated to acting as an undiscriminating mouthpiece for the Nationalist Party. He is a model “useful idiot”.
I remember well his staunch defence of the then Nationalist government’s unjustified expansion of the building development zones, which I had described at the time, on behalf of Din l-Art Ħelwa, as an “unmitigated act of institutionalised vandalism”, and his hysterical reaction to my comments at the time. Aquilina defending the indefensible. The environmental effects of that terrible decision haunt Malta to this day. But then it was a Nationalist administration in power, so that’s alright then. “Useful idiots” are like that.
I would normally have ignored Aquilina’s article (‘Half-baked policymaking?’, July 14) for the tendentious and self-serving drivel that it was – part of the rough and tumble of tribal politics in Malta and the lot of any independent columnist.
Except that he sought to make a direct connection between what I had written as a commentator in this newspaper and the decision reached on the future of the American University of Malta by the board of the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (of which I was then chairman).
‘Useful idiots’ see the world only through one prism. They are pathologically incapable of seeing any other argument. They lack credibility
Aquilina described this decision as “a textbook case of the corruption of unchecked power and lap-dog institutions” [imposed by] “a Prime Minister who makes a doormat of an institution, such as the body Martin Scicluna himself heads”. Like many comments made by ‘useful idiots’, Aquilina’s views are specious and baseless. His mind is made up and he doesn’t like it to be confused by the facts.
What he wrote about the AUM decision was not only ill-informed and wrong. It also defamed the integrity, independence and good name of the many thoughtful and hard-working people who worked diligently at that decision over the last 15 months.
This included not only the 10 members of my board, who were ultimately responsible for making the decision, but also the commission’s secretariat, the three-man academic expert review panel and the seven-man quality assurance committee.
The last two bodies consisted of distinguished, independent-minded Maltese and international academics who conducted the educational due diligence on the project and made their considered recommendations to the board. No lap-dogs there, I can assure Aquilina.
All the members of my board and the outstanding academics who have been responsible for this decision have been publicly named by me and are on the record. We are all accountable. Every step taken in the decision-making process has been set out for the media and for all to see. The media received a copy of the 18-page report of the detailed steps followed. I am also sending Aquilina a personal copy for him to study.
Moreover, the board received independent and detailed expert advice about the probity of the investors and the viability of their business plan as a result of the comprehensive financial due diligence carried out by leading international auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers. The financial due diligence process lasted almost six months and resulted in stringent conditions being imposed on the applicant.
Following this intense and detailed evidence-based scrutiny, my board accepted in their entirety the recommendations made by the educational and financial experts. We incorporated that advice in the conditions we laid down to Sadeen Education Investment Ltd in our offer to grant a licence to the American University of Malta over a fortnight ago.
It is an offer which AUM is still considering. This may reflect the rigour with which the due diligence was conducted and the conditions laid down by us to ensure the long-term viability of this project to provide Malta with absolute confidence that it will be both educationally and financially viable for the long term.
The board’s decision was reached independently. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Education were involved in the decision-making process at any stage. They were scrupulous in keeping their distance and ensuring that my board and I, and all the experts involved in the process, were not press-ganged into making a decision which was not objective and strictly within the rules laid down in the law.
When my board took over the National Commission for Further and Higher Education three years ago, they inherited from the last Nationalist administration a demoralised, under-strength and broken organisation. It had a CEO who was on his way out, no proper financial or organisational structures, staff with mixed terms and conditions of service with no collective agreement to guide or reassure them. It was also grossly under-resourced to meet its newly expanded roles.
With the help of an excellent CEO, my board has rebuilt that organisation and advanced it organisationally, administratively and in all the technical areas for which the commission is responsible. Above all, it has established for itself the independence, integrity, objectivity and transparency of evidence-based due diligence which are the hallmarks of a good independent regulator in the public service.
Following our decision on the American University of Mata, The Sunday Times of Malta wrote a leader (‘Institution that sets example’, July 3), which encapsulated what we have achieved:
“All democratic countries need strong institutions. They provide assurance that citizens’ interests are being safeguarded and the rule of law upheld and that the State structures are not being usurped for personal or political gain. They hold power in check and reduce the opportunity for corruption. The NCFHE is, on the evidence, a member of a shrinking club of well-functioning institutions that include the National Audit Office and the Ombudsman. Whether the government is pleased about that is another matter.”
Aquilina has made a number of unfounded and ill-judged accusations. “A text-book case of corruption of unchecked power?” The commission “a doormat” and “a lap-dog”? I don’t think so. The evidence points in the opposite direction. In making that kind of accusation, ‘useful idiots’ seek to undermine the independence and good standing of the very essence of independent, regulatory authorities that the good governance they profess to support stands for.
Political debate relies on robust exchanges. For an independent commentator, being intellectually honest with my readers is paramount. It means sometimes highlighting the deficiencies of our all too human political masters, as well as offering constructive criticism if their policies are half-baked or wrong-headed.
We hold no monopoly on knowledge but do our best to be objective.
‘Useful idiots’, on the other hand, see the world only through one prism. They are pathologically incapable of seeing any other argument. They lack credibility. The uninformed and ill-considered comments made by Aquilina about the commission’s decision on the AUM are a travesty of the facts. They do a disservice to the young hard-working members of the commission who have been striving hard, and succeeding, to establish its reputation.
Aquilina would do so much better to stick at what he does best, which is producing pretty picture books about Malta’s cultural heritage.
̉Żonqor Point, the site proposed for the American University of Malta.