Jonathan Attard, Lawyer

The notion of conflict of interest in politics has preoccupied societies since the creation of the first forms of political representation. The possibility of a politician having incompatible multiple interests potentially clashing with the decision-making is in fact an inherent concern arising between the politicians and the people they represent. The bottom line should always be common interest.

Let’s put things into perspective. The Maltese Parliament is made up of part-time politicians, so, from the outset, each person seeking political office in Malta has at least two obligations, mainly their constituency and their profession. Therefore, if local politics is expected to attract only individuals completely free from any other interest, we might either end up excluding people with successful careers or we would basically need to revisit the current parliamentary system.

One can easily fall into the trap of classifying everything, especially the personal experience and background of a politician, as a conflict of interest. In a small island like Malta, such an attitude might lead to the risk of having no adequate human resources to fill political offices.

I am in favour of common sense and maturity. The absolute majority of people with a business background do have integrity and are above board. They can surely live up to the ethics and standards required in the political sphere. No doubt, one can never accept a situation, as happened in the previous legislature, where a high government official is today negotiating a sensitive agreement for the country with a private consortium and becomes CEO of that same private consortium the day after.

Yet, should we a priori avoid engaging people with a successful background? The answer is clearly in the negative because political history has shown us that such people have a lot to contribute, just like people with a professional background. As a country, we cannot afford not to make use of all our available resources so that we may continue forging ahead on this road to success.

This brings about, however, a constant need for vigilance to prevent situations where multiple interests lead to corruption, conscious or otherwise.

I am of the opinion that the most effective action is to put in place concrete initiatives that serve as a deterrent and assure that justice is achieved. In this respect, the government has already delivered, firstly with the introduction of the Protection of the Whistleblower Act 2013 and the removal of prescription on acts of political corruption, so that people can come forward and report such cases while political office holders can no longer raise the plea of prescription when charged with corruption.

After decades being singled out as a country without party financing rules, this government introduced the much-awaited Political Financing Act 2014, establishing strict rules for parties and candidates and putting peoples’ minds at rest that a party in government should not have any obligations towards anyone. This was followed by the introduction of a new system for the appointments of the judiciary, the Standards in Public Life Act, which establishes a Commissioner for Standards to enforce the code of ethics and also amendments to the Standing Orders of the House, boldly introducing a fine for all MPs who do not attend Parliament without a justifiable reason. The ethics in this thorny realm are being screened like never before.

This area requires consistent updating in a rapidly changing society but, evidently, this government has started the long overdue implementation of changes in the fundamental pillars of democracy.

Conflict of interest in politics is not only a national issue. The recent presidential election in the United States has provided quite a relevant case study. It would be interesting to see how President-elect Donald Trump can effectively segregate his business interests from his duty to serve the common good and for the good of his country. I guess only time will tell.

Alex Perici Calascione, Treasurer and candidate for the general election, Nationalist Party

Many would argue that, in a society where most people are known to many, conflicts of interest are inevitable or that one should not seek to be overzealous, even in public office.

Conflict of interest could be potential. It could be actual but such that will not influence the decision of the politician. It could be both actual and determining – this is the clear conflict of interest.Whether clearly potential or actually clear, there is no alternative to avoidance.

Truth be told, there is a tendency to set the highest standards imaginable for opponents but then apply convoluted arguments to justify conflict cases in one’s house. As society develops, however, such a practice becomes less effective or convincing.

Then, there is one other form of conflict of interest that has reared its head in recent years, which goes beyond even this ‘clear’ type of conflict. This is the worst imaginable form.

It is the brazen, barefaced, unashamed kind, so much ‘in your face’ that it could not possibly be more glaringly evident.

It is that form of practice born out of illogical overconfidence and an unmitigated corrupt mindset.

It is likewise born out of an utter disregard, if not outright contempt, of the electorate as it is invariably accompanied by an explanation which begs belief as much as it instigates anger in all except the most blinkered.

We have in this period experienced cases of conflict of interest that are so evident as to leave one speechless, only to be surpassed by the shamelessness of the official reaction.

The appointment by the Planning Authority as its consultant for the Paceville master plan of the same firm which was a consultant to one of the major Paceville developments could not be more brazen.

The direct involvement of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff in the sealing of the Crane deal only to discover that Crane would be ordering the equipment (reportedly €65 million worth) from Komoro Group whose local agent is none other than the same chief of staff’s private company, is similarly glaring.

Faced with such cases, the Prime Minister himself inexplicably announces that he sees absolutely no conflict of interest – “not at all” to be precise.

Awareness and avoidance of conflict of interest is an integral part of good governance and of sound ethics in the carrying out of public service.

Flagrant disregard of it before and ignoring scathing evidence of it after flies in the face of the very minimum standards of public office, which we all have a right to take absolutely for granted.

No one party can claim that it will never have to face such instances while in office. This much is true. What is most worrying today is the message given from the very top that ‘anything goes’. As long as one or more single sectors of the population may be doing well, then all is to be justified, even the most shockingly unjustifiable. This has to stop. This has to stop before it is too late and before its poisonous consequences on our entire social fabric causes the type of harm that will take ages to heal.

What can be done to avoid conflict of interest? There is only one way really. It is the conscious option to inject that strong dose of honesty in political life; that measure by which each politician knows quite clearly what is right and what is wrong; what can be done and what clearly should not; what is correct and what is unequivocally corrupt – in the clear knowledge that if that red line is crossed, there will be neither excuse nor cover-up.

This is the beginning and the end of it all. Honesty in public service is neither utopic nor a dead letter. It is possible. At the stage where our country now stands, it is also quite possibly our last resort.