Rome has spoken, case closed. This quote, wrongly attributed to St Augustine, is what apologists of papal infallibility use to substantiate their cause. Indeed, there are those who still think that once the Vatican has pronounced itself on any issue – even mere administrative matters – there is no more room for discussion in the Catholic Church. But even though it is quite interesting, I will not be writing on this somewhat thorny issue.
I have mentioned this quote, as it came to mind earlier this week when the Prime Minister commented on the subject of Minister Anton Refalo allegedly making the Gozo Channel ferry turn back to pick him up. Much has been said about the Minister’s infamous phone call to this “unknown” person at Gozo Channel and, sadly enough, a scapegoat for the whole affair has already been found. Indeed, the Duty Manager has been suspended, and as yet it is not exactly clear for what. Is it because he went against a company policy which other employees say does not exist? I don’t wish to delve further into Minister Refalo’s behaviour. It is there on the record and everyone can draw their own conclusions.
What does raise questions is the way the Prime Minister defended Minister Refalo’s actions, saying that the company policy had been breached and that was clear that Minister Refalo was acting to uphold a company policy. He added that “the issue stops here” and unilaterally declared the matter as “case closed”. So is that it? Joseph has spoken, case closed?
If the Prime Minister – or any other politicians – paint themselves into a corner, can they decide to just close the matter there? Is this how issues are to be declared “over”? Who is the one to decide whether a case is closed or not?
Anyone who thinks that saying “the case is closed”, means the matter really does end there, shows two very important traits in the way politicians see the world around them.
1. A lopsided conception of the type of power they wield
They must think they are quite supreme and all-powerful to decide which matters are of public interest and which are not, which issues are to be stopped and which others can continue to be discussed. An electoral mandate to govern is simply that: the majority of people empower you to administer the country, nothing more nothing less. It is not a bestowing of a divine right of the power of infallibility.
2. A de facto disregard for the essential foundations of a democratic society
The concept on which Western democracies have evolved is based more or less on the principles that there are three branches of power: the legislative, the judicial and the executive, technically independent of each other and to some extent linked by the ultimate choice of the people in democratic elections. Then there is the fourth estate, which is mainly found in the media’s important role of being the public guardian, enquiring and reporting all that needs to be reported in the public interest. Maybe it is not the best system, but as yet, this is the system we have in place and those are the rules by which it is played.
So, considering the Prime Minister’s declaration, we need to discuss the matter of who decides when and how a case is closed. And this is not about the Prime Minister. This is about our political class, who perhaps prefer to think that it is they who set the agenda, who run the show and who can dictate the where, when, who and how of what is important for the people to discuss.
Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for all of us, it is not politicians who decide when the news cycle of any particular issue is over. It is the public who decides, through the crucial role played by the media. As already mentioned, in a democratic society like ours, the media have the right and the duty to question and probe the authorities on those matters they deem require a reply in the public interest. Actually, I think the Prime Minister knows this all too well from his long years in journalism – and standards do not change just because the boot is now on the other foot.
When someone is put on the spot, held hostage by the cameras and microphones in front of them, being pressured to give a valued judgment on a situation which is less than clear and which could have serious repercussions on the reputation of an organisation or institution, they could fall into the trap of thinking that by sweeping it away under the carpet, it will perhaps go away. But that is wishful thinking – rarely does it go away.
On the contrary, it festers and worsens with time, leading to its exposure later on. In other words, such an attitude, one day or another, will backfire. The former PN administration learnt this the hard way when it thought that the issue of the Ministers’ honoraria increase, or the in-fighting within the party, would go away on their own and die a natural death. They did not. These, and other issues, kept on hounding former PM Lawrence Gonzi up to Election Day. Rightly so, people wanted him and his administration to immediately admit that things were not all fine and dandy, and to rectify the situation. In fact, when remedial action was taken, it was deemed as being too little, too late, and the election result is a clear example of the fact that this attitude does indeed backfire.
The lesson to be learnt is very simple. Issues stop being issues when they are properly addressed and not when politicians decide it is a good time for them to move on. In over six months, this administration has managed to garner a quite out-of-the-ordinary number of controversial issues which optimists could attribute to a lack of experience coupled with over zealousness to achieve “change”. On the other hand, Labour detractors do not see it like that. They see it as an omen of more similar things to come in the next 53 months. It is up to the Prime Minister and the government he leads to prove them wrong – but will he?
reubensciberras.blogspot.com