Carmel Cacopardo, in case you don’t know, is a man known to be honest, difficult certainly, but honest first and foremost. He worked for MEPA in that most difficult of roles – an investigative officer. Honesty is very rare here let’s admit it. So instead of preserving him he is not being reappointed to his post as an investigative officer because of that old chestnut called “a conflict of interest”. First we were told he chaired some AD meeting where MEPA’s internal workings were being debated. Horrors! Now we are told he “publicly questioned the credentials of a man appointed director for environment protection, a post for which Mr Cacopardo himself applied.”

Are you feeling as shocked and outraged as I am? Not! (Thank you Borat.)

This accusation of conflict of interest can be used to shut anyone up in Malta. I have always taken the opposite view. In such a small place with no real effective journalism, and to be fair to journalists where they do not know what is really going on, where our judges are bribed, and therefore no really effective democracy, it is incumbent on all of us, particularly those of us who see the workings of power up close to be brave, to open our mouths and to use power not maliciously of course, but to try and improve things and move them forward. Just being a yes man or women is not morally right at all, even though there is so much pressure to be so, and so many accusations and mutterings of conflict of interest and much more when you do freely express your views just a little.

Those who are accusing Cacopardo of conflicts of interests must surely be guilty of the same. Aren’t we all? We are all connected. Certain ministers are unhealthily friendly with certain public appointees. Certain public appointees run certain businesses that are incompatible with their role. Certain MPs, as Daphne pointed out this week, defend our worst criminals. Certain MPs occupy a government post that puts their freedom in Parliament in some doubt. Certain PRish people are paid to express certain opinions. And it goes on. Everyone is compromised. But does that mean there is no honesty? That does not mean we should not reappoint those who do their job honestly or does it?

To me it is not the Mugliett case which symbolises our lack of regard for 21st century freedoms but the Cacopardo one. It is a shame because this mishandling is being viewed as part of government when it may well not be.

The Cacopardo case of a man who struggled under the Mintoff administration and Lorry Sant particularly, and is now struggling again under this one is perhaps a clearer pointer than any of our very superficial understanding of democracy? Robert Arrigo, Nationalist MP, recently wrote poignantly of the need for us all to remember how bad it could be under Labour again. But people simply are no longer grateful because the Nationalists have kept the thuggery of the Mintoff years at bay. They are now expecting real democracy too, EU style.

We expect openness, we expect honesty, and we expect the few public officers who do both to be allowed to express a point of view. Why not for heavens’ sake? What on earth are we afraid of? Democracy and freedom itself? We now have the ugly spectacle of Nationalists undermining other Nationalists. What worked as tactics in the eighties to scare people off Labour will not work now. People don’t want scare tactics or reminders of the past. We want to forget Labour’s follies. People just want to move forward, to feel free, to live in a country where some semblance of fairness exists, to allow others to be free and not to live in a country where anyone who opens his or her mouth is ultimately brought down, especially if they have no connections to protect them.

Almost anyone can be shut up in Malta quoting the dreaded conflict of interest because almost everyone has one. It seems to be to be totally irrelevant that Cacopardo chaired an AD meeting or protested when he didn’t get a job. How many honest, brave and hard-working investigative officers does MEPA have to throw out anyway? That should in no way impinge on whether he should continue in his recent role at MEPA. The fact that someone is trying to silence this man, to sideline him is symptomatic of our very limited 45 years of experience practising democracy. With or without EU membership we still have a mountain to climb to allow us to feel free, to act freely and to follow our hearts and satisfy our passions, things our political classes seem hell bent on trying to curtail. And then they feel hurt and paranoid and wonder why the media has so little good to say of them, the independentish media at least.

When historians will pinpoint the points this administration suffered from, the same tarnish done by its Labour predecessors in the not so glorious eighties, certain key events will come to mind. The first is Eddie being made President. And the second is not in my view the Mugliett case although it dominates our media. The second is all middle class protest and controversy on MEPA applications, and most especially the refusal to reappoint someone for a series of spurious reasons which simply illustrate how far removed people in charge are from the way many people think, from many people’s sense of fair play, from many people’s now definite understanding of how few are honest and how they must be safeguarded and not harassed, cherished and not undervalued, protected and not vilified.

One of the most annoying aspects of our democracy is our tendency to almost shout at each other and not listen at all. Our media, which in fact reflects our national psyche and our tendency to misunderstand democracy, illustrates this very well. Most of our newspapers are simply print boards for what each side is saying. One side says something. It gets printed however absurd because it is a press release. Then the other side send in their retort and again it is printed however absurd it is.

It helps no end if you have certain contacts in the media because then your point of view might be published right away. If not it might languish while people ask you why you hadn’t responded to that particular attack

For years political parties have used the media to promote this shouting as the deaf way of doing politics. And the public have switched off. Politicians who now want to be listened to must not behave like our media. In politics, in public life you inhabit this goldfish bowl and everyone scrutinizes. People must be free to comment and express their views. Parliamentarians gave themselves the privilege to do this in Parliament. They can say anything they like about anyone and not even have to defend it in court. So this class of people, unlike us, have different pensions, don’t get their work cars taxed and can say what they like in Parliament. Why oh why can’t they accord the rest of us mere mortals, even those of us like Cacopardo who worked in public life a little of the freedoms and privileges they gave themselves?

[email protected]