According to British politician Lord Acton “Power corrupts; but absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This theory discourages honest people from taking positions where they can leave a positive effect. A different line of thought is expressed by one of the world’s prolific writers, George Bernard Shaw, who maintains that “Power does not corrupt. It is fools who get into a position of power that corrupt power.” I support Shaw’s theory.

Power does not corrupt but the fear of losing it makes fools in power corrupt it. Honest people do not corrupt power, in fact they ensure that power is not corrupted. Nations deserve honest governments.

Corruption of power is unethical and dishonest, often used to acquire personal benefit by who those entrusted with a position of authority. It undermines legitimacy. Corruption, especially in a public position, hits a nation negatively. Corruption and lack of transparency are friends of a feather. Lack of transparency should never be a Government’s system. With transparency and good governance, power cannot be corrupted. People lose trust in a government that lacks transparency. The more important and the higher the position one occupies the more society’s demands for moral authority and character increase.

Joseph Muscat, before the 2013 election correctly declared that “who does not fight corruption when in power, will himself be corrupt”. Muscat also rightly noted that “Corruption is another tax on the consumer and it is the Maltese families who fork the money to make up for corruption”. But, as the saying goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Since March 2013, Malta has been inundated with scandals – even within the walls of the seat of power, Castille. Some scandals stink of corruption.

 

Corruption undermines democracy

Corruption undermines democracy and good governance. The “selling” of public land at a price below its commercial value, or the withdrawal of legal procedures instituted by a previous administration against a company and then reimbursing the company’s owners, or agreeing to give land ‘outside development zone’ to a speculator during a meeting lasting only a few minutes are a few examples of scandals that stink of corruption.

Nepotism (favouring relatives) and cronyism (favouring friends) are forms of corruption since preferential treatment is given to relatives and friends regardless of merit and qualifications – diametrically opposed to meritocracy. Malta is being swamped with instances of such persons getting employment or receiving promotions or favours.

Apart from adversely affecting the nation, corruption hits the honest taxpayer hard. As Muscat correctly stated before the election “corruption is another tax on the consumer and it is the Maltese families who fork the money to make up for corruption”. Higher direct or indirect taxes could make up for corruption thus robbing the taxpayer of hard-earned income. Corruption also unfavourably effects those sacrificing themselves and working hard for an appointment or promotion which is eventually handed to a “friend” without due consideration to merit or qualifications.

Muscat and corruption in the 80s

In September 1998, writing in The Malta Independent when he was Deputy Chairman of the Labour Youth Forum and executive member of the then Malta Labour Party (now Partit Laburista), Joseph Muscat strongly criticised Labour’s actions of the 80s.

To substantiate what he perceived as Labour’s “unhealthy image” then, Muscat quoted what he referred to as “facts”. He mentioned monetary gifts paid to unmentioned persons to purchase a colour TV. He remarked it was “quite curious how certain permits and licenses were issued”. Muscat expressed disappointment that certain people (again unmentioned) did not only distinguish between Labourites and Nationalists but also between Labourites depending on their electoral district.

Muscat wrote about the “bulk-buying system” and how imported chocolates were some of the most smuggled items in Malta. Also, Muscat referred to the fact that the name of the then Leader of the Opposition was not permitted to be mentioned on the State-owned media, and mentioned “violent elements who thought they had all the power in their hands” and who, according to Muscat, surrounded Labour.

Referring to the violent elements, Muscat mentioned the mob attacks on the house of the Leader of the Opposition, Progress Press and the Curia, saying that these “were almost justified”. Again, Muscat failed to mention who he claimed “almost justified” these attacks. In his list, Muscat included the gerrymandered districts (referring to the election of 1981) when the party obtaining the majority of votes (PN) obtained a minority of parliamentary seats.

Muscat declared that, at the time of writing (1998), Labour was signalling that it left behind for good the unhealthy past of the 80s. He concluded that “Labour cannot afford to revert to the style, tactics and people which in the past have made it one of the most morally, physically and ideologically corrupt parties which our country ever had.”

 

Muscat: Labour leader and PM

Ten years after his article, Muscat was elected Labour Leader and, five years later, Prime Minister. Before the 2013 election, he vociferously declared a fight against corruption and that Malta would not belong to a party or to a clique. He promised Malta would belong to all of us. One expected Muscat not to follow the style and tactics of Labour of the 80s that he strongly criticised. Actions speak louder than words. A big difference exists between what one says before an election and when one is elected.

No sooner had Muscat assumed the leadership of the country that Labour’s electoral manifesto started being partially discarded, whilst some of Muscat’s promises began to evaporate and scandals started sprouting. The promise that “one may not agree with us but one can work with us” was immediately thrown out of the windows of Castille when all Permanent Secretaries were requested to tender their resignation, followed by hundreds of vindictive transfers – a clear indication of what was to be expected during the Labour administration.

Nepotism and cronyism became the order of the day. The “friends of friends” and those whose smiling faces were strewn on Labour’s electoral billboards throughout Malta were and are still being compensated with appointments worth thousands of euros. The necessary credentials, replacing merit and qualifications, were appointees’ contribution towards Labour’s victory. Meritocracy was abandoned, distinguishing even between Labourites, something Muscat claimed happened in the 80s and which he strongly criticised.

Since March 2013, nepotism, cronyism and other more serious scandals – some of them stinking of corruption – have become synonymous with the Labour Government. The number of scandals and alleged corruption that have been taking place in the past four years violated trust and damaged the taxpayer. Following close on the heels of a 10-place drop in the corruption index published recently by Transparency International, a local newspaper has just announced the results of a survey indicating that concern on corruption in Malta has reached an all-time high.

Malta will not be destroyed by those who are immersing themselves in corruption and scandals but by whoever does not act to eradicate the corruption of power, particularly those in a position, and therefore duty bound to do so. Those who should act but, for some reason, declines will be abetting those who are corrupting power. Fools who corrupt power must be defeated.

 

The 80s and after March 2013

Comparisons are odious. Muscat strongly accused the Labour of the 80s and promised that a “new” Labour signalled leaving behind the unhealthy past. As Labour leader, before being elected Prime Minister, Muscat promised, amongst other promises, that a Labour Government would look after the taxpayers’ finances with responsibility, guided by the values of good governance, accountability, transparency and social justice. He declared a fight against corruption.

Since 2013 we have been witnessing power being corrupted through bad governance, lack of accountability and of transparency, cronies being given positions of trust, and scandals making the headlines regularly. Muscat’s moral responsibility came into doubt after he kept two of his closest colleagues who opened secret companies in Panama just days after taking the oath of office in place.

When comparing the Labour of the 80s, harshly criticised by Muscat, with the last four years, one can conclude which period was worse. Muscat’s accusations in 1998 about the MLP of the 80s, and some promises made by him before March 2013 are not even worth the paper they were written on.