It would appear that the parliamentary sessions have reached an impasse.  Each attempt at public scrutiny is met with defence mechanisms that are bordering on contempt.   The atmosphere is degenerating faster than the time it takes to receive replies to parliamentary questions and the public is perplexed by the unfathomable situation.

No amount of undermining and deviation is going to avoid the truth.  Devaluation is the defence mechanism that denies the importance of someone or something and no amount of excuses are going to cover or rationalise the true explanation by plausible means.  Likewise, hostility and excessive aggressiveness provoke instinctive reactions leading to further animosity.

Self- serving bias is a tendency to take credit for success and deny any responsibility for failure.  We will tend to be less self-serving if other needs interrupt, for example, if we are subject to public scrutiny.

The fear is that make-shift replies to legitimate and necessary requests for information become the standard and the norm.  The importance of accountability, efficiency and formal rationality – which involves making choices based on universal rules, regulations, and the larger social structure of a society – becomes devalued.

In an evolved society, Parliament is the place where a higher level of scrutiny is applied to the general perception and every attempt is made to sift through the ordinary to achieve the extraordinary.

The opposite happens when populist and primitive stances are used to entertain the masses and divert issues away from public scrutiny.

As representatives of the people, members of parliament reflect the culture and ethics of those they represent.  The growing sense of discomfort is an indication that there is a contradiction in the way the people are represented and the way they perceive the behaviour presented. 

Hysterical outbursts, suspension of sittings, ad hominem abuse which usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments, degrading comments and at worst – avoiding or ridiculing public scrutiny – have led to a breakdown in the very purpose of scrutiny and by effect, parliament.  Casual attire, without a tie, also shows disdain towards the arena and appears arrogant.  Maybe if Mr. Tsipras would at least concede to wearing a tie, he might build a better relationship with his colleagues in Europe.  The same goes for parliament and showing it the respect it commands.

We fear what the next step will be.  Contracts of national importance, many with long ranging consequences and others involving very substantial public funds have not been presented under some informal fallacy of reasoning.  This state of affairs cannot be maintained indefinitely without serious repercussions. 

It is also to be expected that the fallout will not be contained nationally but that there will also be international knowledge of the failure to account in a democratic system for such deficiencies.  That is the nature of democratization and the institutions that uphold it.  The scrutiny by the EU commission of the €88 million bank guarantee granted to Electrogas is a case in point as was the debate in the European parliament about the IIP .

Threats and intimidation are a risk when the system degenerates badly and the instability can spread throughout the country with conflict becoming a real possibility.  Our country has seen such episodes in the not too long past and a revival can be quick. 

The 2008 – 2013 Gonzi Government had an unstable majority but a stable leadership.  The current government has a stable majority but a record amount of scandals in such a short time and dubious agreements with questionable partners that bear serious scrutiny before we find ourselves at sea.

It should be in the interest of the government to openly justify and defend their decisions and to convince the electorate that whatever is being done is being done in their interest and not in self- interest.  Failure to debate openly and to accept criticism will only create rumours and uncertainty.

Surely it is not too much to expect from a modern society and the political class, that all parties bring the best qualities, human resources and value to the administration of our country.  The people also made a choice to join the European Union because it upheld the beliefs of the organisation and wished to see them implemented in our own country.  Unexpectedly, we are having to align our thinking to countries that are known for their lack of human rights or for their undemocratic political systems.  This is not what people wanted at this time.  They thought such choices were in the past now that we are in the EU.  Naturally, we are not limited to just Europe when it comes to trade and the economy but when it comes to style and narrative, we rather hoped to continue in the same direction.

All of this rhetoric is hurting the country and dehumanising politics, getting us nowhere.  Where is the gain?  Are we better off for not knowing where the Minister of Energy and Health is?  Should we just accept that Henley and Partners know more than the public about our population and finances?

Have we no say in committing a chunk of our finances to a private company?  Even at local council level, should they not be allowed to manage their wardens system and local planning?  Don’t the people have a right to question the expropriation of property at exorbitant amounts to an individual and who may have facilitated or engineered the fact? Can we simply allow ODZ land to be handed over to foreign private business without an analysis of the cost and benefit? And what about the state of public transport and roads? The overcrowding at Mater Dei and how it is affecting patients?  Reports and enquires that lie hidden such as the Hondoq report?  Flying off the handle in an attempt to discourage further scrutiny is poor and we are no better off as a result. 

Perhaps there is some confusion about the person and the person’s job.  If a road is in a bad state, it does not mean that the Minister is expected to go and repair it or whatever, with a shovel and tarmac.  But he could give an account of what he plans to do to tackle it.  That is what the opposition seek to know on behalf of the people they represent and which would also satisfy those who elected the government.    A satisfactory reply could even earn the government some kudos, so why the need for all the cloak and daggers?

Summer is approaching and with it another parliamentary recess.  Let us hope that when it convenes again, we will see a more conciliatory tone, cooperation and serious debate, for the good of the country and the respect of the institution and the work it represents.  The people expect nothing less.