I was particularly struck by a phase used by my friend Georg Sapiano in an interview he gave to the Malta Today (June 14).

My paraphrases of what he said is the following: the great electoral defeat suffered by the PN at the EP elections, should not make the government fall to the temptation of doing what is popular just because it is popular, i.e. for votes' sake. The government should do the decent thing even if it costs votes.

Georg mentioned an example. He has taken a public position in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation so he should be very happy if the government adopts this position. Georg gives a caveat. He said that the government should not introduce such legislation if it thinks that divorce is bad for society even if it was proven that the legalisation of divorce would earn it votes. Divorce legislation should be introduced out of conviction and not out of convenience.

What Georg was saying in the above mentioned interview, is the crux of the problem faced by any government. Should the government opt for populist stances at the expense of the common good? Should it choose what is for the common good even at the expense of votes?

The high moral ground answer would be that the common good should come before the party good even when such a choice is for the party's detriment. I also suspect that the long-term good of the political parties lies in seeking and putting into practice the common good. It is true that such a strategy can have negative effects in the immediate term but the quest of the common good will benefits the parties as well since it will benefit the country, which they want to govern.

The quest for the common good is difficult also, because it necessitates a change in colonialist type of mentality - ir-Regina ghandha but fond (The Queen has a deep pocket) - that still characterises many (if not most) among us.

Let me mention just one example. In Malta there are 6,346 persons receiving an invalidity pensions. The state grants it after a person is declared to be medically unfit to work. The system has been abused a lot. Following a medical review many persons were found to be healthy and work-worthy. As a result, the Ministry for Social Policy revoked the invalidity pension of 1,769 beneficiaries. Out of these 376 persons are from Gozo whose population, it seems is prone to invalidity much more that the rest of the population of these Islands!

I commiserate the Gozitans who suffer so many health problems. Undoubtedly, the persons who are struck of the register following a medical examination which signals that their health is ok, are not amused. They will be baying for the blood of the politicians who endorse the decisions of the experts. Such decisions will cost the government votes. However, such decisions should not be shirked because they cost votes.

The decent, decently

The national interest is always more important that individualist interests. However, there needs to be a reasoned and just balance between macro and the micro dimensions of politics as well as in their execution. The government, in other words, should always opt for doing the decent thing; but this should be executed decently. It should see to it that its decisions inflict the least pain possible, if the infliction of pain is unavoidable. This is not always the case.

Let us look at one aspect of the never ending saga of the controversial utilities' rates. In a short period of about six weeks, people received two bills covering up around 10 months of usage of service. One bill was already too stiff for many families. Imagine how stiffer it was for many families to have to pay two hefty bills in 45 days! Instead of minimising pain, someone decided to exacerbate it. Someone somewhere decided to intensify it to the point of making it unbearable. This is surely not an example of doing the decent (assuming that the bills are decent), decently.

I referred to the period of 45 days within which the bills have to be paid before action could be taken against those who default payment. I don't know whether Enemalta is scrupulous with the observation of that time period; but it seems that the VAT department is! I know of a person who received a letter from the VAT department informing him that he defaulted on his VAT payments and threatened him with legal action unless he paid within two days. The writer of the letter did not even have the courtesy of referring to the period for which a VAT contribution was allegedly not paid.

This person was not part of the corrupt circle for which the VAT department is now so infamous. He always paid his contribution on time and had all the relevant receipts. Nevertheless, to clear the issue he had to take time off from his place of work to go to the department and clear the mess.

Paying VAT is decent but treating people in such a shabby manner is not. Such an attitude can lead to the creation of the perception that only the corrupt receive red carpet treatment in that department.

The Entitlement Card which gives us the right for free medical treatment in EU countries is a most decent thing. But, bureaucracy has a knack of indecently tackling the most decent things.

A friend of mine sent in an application. More that four weeks passed and she had still not received the card. She had to go personally to the relevant office to get it. She was then served in a few minutes.

Another one applied to get his name included in the Pharmacy of Your Choice Scheme - another decent initiative. After waiting for a number of months, he went personally to the office where these applications are handled. It was only then that he managed to get served. In this day and age of e-government why should such incidents keep on happening?

Change in culture

As noted above, doing the decent, decently, requires a change in culture. The creation of a just and reasoned balanced between the macro and micro dimensions of politics is a difficult task.

It is not easy to balance national and sectorial interests. This balance cannot be achieved by the government alone. The civil service has an important part to play. So do the unions and the rest of civil societies. These three sectors - civil service, unions, civil society - unfortunately also have their agendas which sometimes militate against the common good. Some are personal agendas.

Others are institutional agendas e.g., they are out to serve their constituencies more than the common good. A trade unionist told a friend of mine: I know my members. I don't know who the common good is. Scandalous but true.

Doing the decent thing and doing it decently is a very difficult thing, indeed.