Constitutional reform is all the rage these days. Following the findings of the Venice Commission we are told that there will be a constitutional shake-up and that we will have a brand new shiny updated Constitution.
Well, a big whoop to that. I don’t know why we need yet another PL-PN Constitutional Jamboree to tell us what we already know – that power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive and is being exercised without any regard to the limits of fairness or impartiality.
It’s true that the Constitution has always allowed for this massive concentration of power by the Prime Minister – who effectively has the power to hire and fire people in the most vital public roles – but it is also true that these powers do not need to be exploited to the extremes that we are witnessing.
Take the issue of persons of trust. While it is a clear necessity for people engaged in sensitive roles to be trusted by the ministers they are engaged with, I can’t see why hordes of hopelessly underqualified, inexpert, inexperienced people are being engaged with the public service and being paid hugely inflated salaries. They are not all employed in super-sensitive roles as would be expected. And they are not all required in high management or professional posts. And if the Nationalist administration had made similar engagements, well then, that was wrong and should not be emulated.
We have the illusion of checks and balances and transparency and nothing much in reality
The same applies to the armies of ‘consultants’ being accelerated to the government cash counter. Some of them wouldn’t recognise a legal principle if it wormed its way through their ear hole – and yet they continue to be elevated to enjoy undeserved riches, while ‘normal’ people have to make do without the luxury perks.
More to the point, they are making a dog’s dinner of legislation and regulations – very bad jobs that will eventually have grave legal percussions for the whole country. Do we need the Venice Commission/a constitutional reform to tell us this sucks? Of course not – it just requires a sense of decency and balance.
Precisely the same reasoning applies to the dishing out of direct orders. I understand that there are circumstances that may necessitate resorting to direct orders. But these should be the exception, not the rule. There is no way that I can get my head around the lists of direct orders continuously featured in the Government Gazette.
Just to name one, last week we saw that the Ministry for the Family, Children’s Rights and Social Solidarity paid €69,000 for 6,000 books – a procurement made by direct order.
Now I love books and would strongly support the provision of a wide variety of books and their wide distribution. But in this case, the direct order involved the acquisition of 1,000 copies of six different books written by the late Frans Sammut. The books were procured from Ms Catherine Sammut.
I don’t know how the Family Ministry is involved in the purchase of Maltese novels. I do know about the hoops and circles other authors and publishers have to go through in order to be able to get their books on some approved textbook list. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to spread the largesse? Do we need a Constitutional Pow Wow to figure this out?
Our politicians insist that we have a sophisticated democratic system because we have institutions such as that of the Ombudsman and Freedom of Information legislation. What they fail to mention is that the Ombudsman’s opinions are selectively applied and Freedom of Information requests are routinely ignored to frustrate citizens. So we have the illusion of checks and balances and transparency and nothing much in reality.
This is not some earth-shattering discovery but a practical point that has been brought to the attention of the authorities time and time again. As former MP and legal expert Franco Debono said, what is needed is political will to implement good practices, not yet another constitutional talking shop.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece