When former British prime minister John Major ad-dressed the Conservative Party’s conference in autumn 1993, he could not anticipate the events which were about to unfold.
His speech served as a rallying call for Conservative Party members. He referred to the values of “neighbourliness, decency [and] courtesy” and urged the party to go “back to basics” and revisit the values of “self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the State”.
These were laudable and timely exhortations. Yet, in the ensuing year, several party members were embroiled in scandals which would turn this speech into parody. Stories of politicians engaged in extramarital affairs, love triangles, homosexual trysts and the fathering of illegitimate children littered the tabloids of the day. More serious charges were levelled against some MPs, who were accused of accepting monetary handouts in exchange for asking questions in the House of Commons.
The result was humiliating for both Major and the Conservative Party. The greatest loss in such circumstances is always the gradual decline in public trust. Trust, once breached, is hard to restore.
The life and health of a nation is intrinsically linked to the quality of its public life
Public entities funded by the taxpayer are always subject to intense scrutiny. The public rightly demands that the individuals and the public services funded from their taxes are delivered in an efficient and timely manner and that nothing unseemly, dishonest or illegal should tarnish them.
Standards are not shaped merely by people’s expectations. Constitutional documents and other legal instruments embody principles of governance and right conduct, which help to establish standards and expectations relating to the role of elected and unelected officials and the exercise of power and authority. Maintaining standards is therefore not ancillary to the exercise of government; it lies right at the heart of government, for without such standards, the credibility of institutions and the legitimacy of public authority is at stake.
The Constitution of Malta establishes independent offices, such as that of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman, aimed at providing governmental oversight. They are, respectively, tasked with investigating matters relating to public expenditure and administrative actions taken by the government or other relevant authorities. For decades, several codes of ethics covering every branch of the State have supposedly been in force. Nonetheless, Malta is yet to have a serious discussion on general standards in public life. Such standards go beyond job performance, service delivery and discipline, for they strike right at the heart of the ethos of public service.
Major’s response to his woes was a remarkable exercise, which can help to inform any discussion on standards and public life. The establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the distinguished leadership of Lord Nolan served to raise the debate on standards as well as to establish a number of universal values that should inform public life. The Nolan Committee left a legacy in the shape of a permanent body charged with overseeing standards of conduct.
The committee adopted a wide-ranging definition of the term “public officer”. The public officer is defined as any person who is elected to public office on a local, national or European level, as well as all individuals who work in the civil service, local government, the police, the courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies, health, education, social and care services. This definition serves to demystify the notion of government as some remote bureaucracy.
The committee also adopted the ‘Seven principles of public life’. These principles refer to qualities and values which public officials must possess, and they serve to create a benchmark, as well as an ideal.
Public officers are expected to demonstrate elements of selflessness. They are presumed to be persons of integrity who do not “act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends”. They should exercise their duty in an objective and impartial manner, and they must always be accountable to the public.
Holders of public office must be honest and they should “act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.
The principles also place a lot of importance on leadership, stating that “holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour”.
One cannot deny that there are several public-spirited individuals who possess these values and who go beyond the call of duty. However, as doubts surface on the values underpinning public life, the need to present a unified, wide-ranging, codified standard becomes more pressing.
The Public Administration Act (2009) attempts to define suchvalues in a succinct manner. Nonetheless, the need for them to be more widely known and publicised is imperative.
So too is the need for the law’s jurisdiction to be extended to all holders of public office.
The life and health of a nation is intrinsically linked to the quality of its public life. Doubts about its integrity can have extensive negative repercussions which can take decades to heal. Perhaps the time is ripe to reignite the debate on the standard which needs to be set in public life.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista holds a master’s degree in international relations.