In recent weeks, the spats between the government and the Opposition have come to include mutual accusations of not respecting State institutions and of refusing to acknowledge political responsibility.

At first blush, it would seem as though the standards of mature liberal democracies are finally catching up with us. A second look, however, throws a cold light not just on our politicians but also on us, the public, who talk about wanting to hold them to account.

Let’s begin by considering this difference in demands for accountability.

Elsewhere, disgraced politicians do issue public apologies (although usually after their various attempts to wriggle out of making them have come to naught). However, I am hard-pressed to think of an instance where a government demands that former Cabinet members, now in Opposition, apologise publicly for a scandal that occurred under the former government’s watch (as is happening now over the shocking case of the Mater Dei Hospital concrete).

The mature democracies treat the issues differently. It’s not because they are more lax. Nor is it because shocking scandals do not arise; on the contrary, the more mature a democracy is, the more scandals are likely to come to light, simply because there is oversight combined with freedom of expression.

There is no evidence that they’ve been blessed with straighter, more intellectually-honest politicians and businessmen than we have – so that the need to apologise does not arise. Northern European companies are as likely to be embroiled in graft allegations as any other if they think they can get away with it

The differences lie elsewhere. I would highlight four features.

First, the demands for accountability are much stricter for governments than they are for Oppositions (except for organisational issues like political party funding). The checks are designed to be, primarily, checks on the holders of power; less so on those who aspire to hold it.

The rules and standards are there to protect against encroaching tyranny – for which the ire of public opinion is not enough. Public disgust, however, is usually enough to keep Oppositions in check. They don’t wield actual power. Accounts can be settled at the next election.

With governments, however, waiting for the next election might be too little, too late. Hence why the demands on governments are more onerous. Even when governments make merely ritual apologies, they are significant because they show that the power-holders are acknowledging that their legitimacy stems from public approval.

For this same reason, apologies are not demanded lightly, especially not from Oppositions. Too many apologies would devalue the real thing – those circumstances where disgrace calls for a heartfelt apology.

We, the public, seem to want a mature democracy without paying for it

The second feature distinguishing mature democracies is that a high price is exacted for misbehaviour.

The rules are not only strict. They are enforced. The least corrupt democracies in Europe (let’s not forget there are several, even in western Europe, where corruption is rife) are not those with more honest people. The same people might be dishonest elsewhere. But the laws and enforcement agencies strain to keep them honest within their jurisdiction: legal proof of involvement in corruption can lead to the near destruction of a company or political career.

Apart from the laws, another incentive keeping politicians honest and accountable is the treatment they can expect from the media. Essentially, when a real political scandal breaks out, the media hunt as a pack. The pressure is high.

Moreover, it is long lasting. The media will keep a scandal on its front pages and not get distracted. As a result, governments have every incentive to free themselves of a minister in trouble. The rule of thumb is that if you hog the limelight for more than 10 days, you have to go. Otherwise, the government’s own agenda cannot be pursued.

The third feature is a strong sense of office – not just ‘institutions’ in general. Just as certain occasions impose dress codes – without the slightest sense that our right to wear what we like is being infringed – so certain offices impose a code of behaviour and language.

The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one in a mature democracy. But it would be unthinkable for an official representative of a ministry or the government itself to be permitted to use vulgar, partisan or offensive language. The reason is simple: the government is there to serve everyone; it cannot behave in a partisan manner or speak like a bar-room bigot.

The right to freedom of expression is inalienable but no one has a fundamental right to be a government official. An office brings duties with it; there is no space for personal opinion in carrying out official duties. If you really need to express yourself in a way that is incompatible with the office, then resign from the office and no one then will hold you back.

The distinction between office and personal life is policed strictly and in as transparent a way as possible. In the UK, the then home secretary David Blunkett resigned after being accused of fast-tracking the visa of the nanny of a former lover.

Another minister, Tessa Jowell, was formally investigated by the Cabinet Secretary after it emerged that her husband, David Mills, was involved in corruption charges in Italy. She was exonerated of having incompatible conflicts between her private and public lives (she also separated from her husband for the next six years, which gives you a sense of how seriously she thought the charges affected her public reputation).

The mention of a Cabinet Secretary with powers to investigate ministers brings us to the fourth feature. Strong democracies are strong because they invest in monitoring mechanisms.

Transparency costs money. It requires oversight, staff and prestige for those who head the offices (without the prestige, the results of the investigations would count for nothing).

Transparency also costs time. It takes about 18 months for major EU states like Germany and France to transpose a European directive into national law, given all the checks and balances.

In the short run, the time factor makes autocracies more attractive for investment, since they can take decisions quickly without having them challenged. In the long run, however, democracies are more stable: their monitoring system is better able to defuse crises. And that’s better for business.

Which brings the matter to us. A quick look at the four features will show us come up short on each one.

We don’t seem to act as though checks and balances are meant primarily for governments. Our media organisations don’t hunt as a pack and seem to forget their own scoops in a few days.

Distinctions between person and office seem non-existent. It sometimes appears as though it’s the office that is reshaped to fit the person and not the latter who has to fit the office.

As for us, the public, we seem to want a mature democracy without paying for it. Only we are to blame if we end up with a cheap imitation.

ranierfsadni@europe.com