It’s been quite the cathartic (never mind Arctic) spring. The PN have done the political equivalent of stripping down to their underpants, allowing us a peek into the changing room. And we all know what that is like. Those changing room lights with the horrid neons are always unforgiving, and trying that bikini on in spring – even when it’s an Arctic spring like the one we’re having – is frightening.

Being an elected an MP in government should be looked upon as a privilege

So yes, however useless the exercise, it certainly couldn’t have been painless, especially with a thrashing of those proportions. Every article I read last week, analysing the commissioned report, was an “I told you so”. Every opinion writer asked the rhetorical: “Did they really need to commission a report to tell them what everyone knew all along?”

I suppose it’s a little bit like the diet you know you need to go on, even before you’ve stood in front of that full-length mirror and caught sight of the muffin top and wobbly bits. You’ve seen it steadily piling on and have known the drill for years – steer clear of the carbs and the soft drinks; eat your greens, drink two litres of water and as much green tea as you possibly can.

And yet, sometimes, knowing isn’t enough. You need to pay a nutritionist, go out and buy a gym membership you won’t use, spend some serious money and have someone else tell you what you’ve known all along. Only then can you finally acknowledge that you really need to knuckle down and change, which is what the PN has done.

Whether it will translate into another useless exercise in political rhetoric and whether the PN will right its wrongs, remains to be seen. That said, I think going through the motions and the ritual was useful in and of itself – both to the PN but especially to the PL, who should keep a copy of the report close by – like the Gideon Bible in every hotel room – and read it from time to time as an exercise in what not to do.

The moral of the story – being an elected an MP in government should be looked upon as a privilege, not as a right which bestows on the MP or government a sense of entitlement, to carry on regardless, riding roughshod over the electorate, ignoring their mounting suspicions, and justifying it all on the belief that no explanations are owed because the electorate are not able to see the bigger picture.

The people have and deserve to be in the picture every step of the way because it’s essentially their picture before it is yours.

And every government needs to remember this and be constantly on its toes. It has a duty and an obligation to provide explanations. Franco Mercieca still has lots of catching up to do, if he wants to emulate his predecessor Austin Gatt and go down the same road in tit-for-tat Old Testament style. But I don’t suggest he goes there. An eye for an eye eventually makes the whole world blind – he should know that.

Kudos to Mario de Marco, the only PN member who apologised like he meant it, apart from being the only one who apologised, period. Apologising in a vacuum, saying that you could have done things differently, doesn’t really count.

De Marco came right out and zoomed in on the individual and case, acknowledging that the PN government had failed Joanne Cassar and many others like her, and had permitted a state of affairs where human rights were being trampled on by the very courts that are meant to uphold them.

But then de Marco is as far removed from arrogant, stupid and self-righteous as East is from West. You’re as likely to catch him being any of the above as you would find an animal rights activist in a mink coat.

The judiciary is embarking on its own catharsis, detoxification and reform, and I also flicked through the first draft of the judicial reform document commissioned by the Bonello reform team. I don’t have the space to go into every single thing I agree or disagree with here, but the first recommendation was a good start and I definitely applaud the proposed change to the current system of appointment of members of the judiciary.

I’ve always found it rather peculiar how we can talk about the impartiality of the judiciary, how justice must not only be done but appear to be done, and then permit and perpetuate a system of appointment which is dangerously too close for comfort. To my mind, there is nothing more terrifying than sanitised or institutionalised irregularity and the loss of real and proper safeguards which threaten justice, impartiality and democracy.

The way things stand: lawyers are made magistrates/judges; magistrates are elevated to judges; attorney generals to chief justices, who are then packed off to Strasbourg. Every stage in the chain is a promotion which depends on the Cabinet’s discretion. Can you really have a separation of powers when your bread is being buttered by the executive, upon which your livelihood depends? Can we really trust that justice is being done without any hint of indebtedness?

It’s not fair on us and it’s certainly not fair on them. The judiciary need and deserve to work serenely without fear or favour or anyone questioning or second guessing their judgment or motives. And we, the people have a right not to even have to go there with our thoughts.

This lament has long been coming and has no roots in recent judicial appointments. Considering the system has been this way since forever, it would be most unfair to use these as nepotism scapegoats now.

I feel compelled to point out that viewing Antonio Mizzi’s promotion to judge in terms of chumocracy or some kind of spousal appendage is unfair, unkind and beyond ridiculous, considering the senior magistrate has been next in line for years and already overpassed too many times.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com