Progress and modernization in any country can only happen when its parliamentary democracy rests on a robust edifice of economic and social institutions that operate efficiently while adapting to change. Too frequently, we underestimate this point. So, we have seen major decisions being taken without the involvement of those institutions that supposedly reflect our social reality. Decisional structures have frequently been turned upside down overnight, so that they end up lacking relevance or a viable identity.

Up to now, our institutions, including the courts, are still unable to maintain a productive participation in the development of Maltese society. This was one reason why I believed that Malta’s entry in the European Union was premature. Since we joined, the situation has hardly improved.

One could try to find consolation in the argument that a tiny society will obviously find it difficult to keep viable institutions running. That fails to convince me.

***

Legal reforms

I believed and still do that legal reforms should be considered a priority for Malta in order to enhance efficiency. At present, the island is among the European countries where the legal system takes longest to satisfy the expectations of citizens. It would be best if the reforms being planned by the government in this sector are launched without further delay.

Not so, I was told by a lawyer whom I respect. We should proceed with less haste on the proposals that have been made, for they include quite a number of bloopers.

Lacking legal expertise, one can still understand how certain reforms, while provoking the resistance of people who do not want to budge at all from inherited customs, could also themselves be badly framed.

Yet this should not serve to justify paralysis. Following intensive discussion among all interested parties a final decision should be taken, because an accelerated legal reform is in the national interest.

***

Ethics

On an RTK programme, I had a discussion with Manwel Schembri about ethics and politics, a subject that is always topical. The issue can hardly be discussed independently of concrete dilemmas, especially as it is clear that over the years, the material circumstances which determine our lifestyles change so rapidly, that behaviour which a few years ago was considered as politically correct, is now unacceptable.

However it seems to me that the best method for reviewing the correct criteria by which to scale political behaviour is to classify it under three categories: the personal; the private which would cover the ways by which political action impinges on the civil and commercial space within a society; and the public, where political action decides about matters that relate to collective assets.

Naturally, each of these categories interfaces deeply with the other two. But by analyzing the ethical dimension of political behaviour in this manner one could perhaps arrive at a better judgement regarding what is acceptable and what is not in contemporary democracies.