If one were to find a quiet spot in the countryside, or by the seaside, where to sit down and reflect on the goings-on in current Maltese politics, what would one think about?

When I did it, I didn't sit down but strolled along the Mall in Floriana, contemplating the busts and statues dedicated to the politicians of the early 20th century, like Sir Ugo Mifsud for instance. While contemplating our history, I thought of the future historian tasked with writing about the early 21st century, and the 2010s in particular. My guess is that our future historian will have a myriad of loose ends to come to grips with, trying to tie them up in one coherent narrative.

From their beginning, the 2010s have been mired in chaos. Indeed, thus far, this has been the Chaotic Decade. Our future historian will find two consecutive, chaotic scenarios. First, the chaos in Lawrence Gonzi's unstable government, then the chaos ignited and fuelled by Joseph Muscat's foxy government.

Dr Muscat's administration has been marred by so many scandals that our future historian will have a hard time dealing with them all. But the Panama Papers scandal will certainly outshine all the others. Its magnitude has been such as to shake the (thinking part of the) nation to the core... and to disappoint the Prime Minister. It is disheartening that the Prime Minister was only disappointed. You are disappointed when your favourite team loses the semi-final, not when your right-hand-man and the King's favourite are caught red-handed doing their best to open offshore bank accounts for their secret offshore companies. Normally, you should be furious and kick them out of your life.

There might be those who try to belittle the scandal's impact, but this is to be expected. The government’s diehard supporters realise that there is no profit to be had by admitting the truth. Others, including foreigners, might not wish to interfere, considering it an internal affair.

At the same time, the scandal's impact is not negative because the Opposition says so. This is indeed the test of tests, how we as a nation can measure the impact of a scandal independently of partisan interests and based solely on the national interest. Most importantly, how we can gauge it without the need for the Foreign Adult to treat us like children telling us what is right and what is wrong.

It is the test of tests because this is a fresh opportunity to grow out of what David Herrera has paraphrased as the 'paternalistic, inward-looking approach to governance' and move toward governance in which 'policies are oriented towards ... efficiency and ... competitiveness'. (Mr Herrera's essay appeared in a very recent University of Malta publication called Public Life in Malta II.)

Having a Foreign Adult pointing out to us that it is wrong for a Minister and the Prime Minister's right-hand-man to be involved in secret companies and secret trusts smacks of paternalism. To be competitive, we have to embrace the other mentality, and decide ourselves as a nation what is right and what is wrong.

Then again, in 2002, Godfrey Baldacchino argued that Malta is a 'nationless State', because our national identity is weak. A few years later, he argued, even more insightfully, that as a small island community, Malta has a nervous duality between an 'inward-looking, sheltered, idyllic reality, and a constant necessity to engage with the outside world in a global context', to borrow Mr Herrera's rendition.

I think Professor Baldacchino is right. The country needs to crystallise a strong national identity and the Panama Papers scandal is the perfect "excuse" for us to make a national step forward, turning a crisis into an opportunity. It is my conviction that Simon Busuttil's invitation to form a national coalition for clean and honest politics is to be understood in this context. It is clearly an invitation to work out a Maltese theory of government, centred on clean governance.

It is not the first time that a politician invited the nation to come together to forge a theory of government. Dom Mintoff did it with his probably unconstitutional Constitutional Revolution of 1974. Eddie Fenech Adami did it when he pledged national reconciliation which, in a historical twist and amid quite a little Labour booing, Alfred Sant tried to carry forward. Joseph Muscat promised a Constitutional Convention but, since it does not seem to benefit the pink vote, he did not deliver. (Indeed, it is my firm conviction that Dr Muscat's Movement constantly woos the pink vote in order to counterbalance all that's been going on in Panama. But that's another story.)

Simon Busuttil is inviting people to form a coalition against corruption, in a move which follows the important tradition of national leaders who have contributed to our still underdeveloped theory of government. I think the time is ripe for our intelligentsia to rise to the occasion and join in the work, for the project to proceed in a coherent and ordered fashion, no longer growing organically but according to a detailed design.

Like they did in the run-up to the EU membership referendum 14 years ago, the intellectuals and academics are morally bound to take a stance. Last time they were divided. This time round, the choice should be crystal clear. Any intellectually honest academic should feel it is his/her duty to respond to Simon Busuttil's call to form a coalition against corruption. Not responding would only signal a tacit endorsement of this government's foxiness.

Silence always means consent. The intelligentsia has to speak up: "For us, for our children, for our country."

 

Dr Sammut is the author of the best-selling L-Aqwa fl-Ewropa. Il-Panama Papers u l-Poter