I’ve already raised the question before, but it bears repeating. How should the Catholic Church in today’s Malta be considered?

As a leading institution in the island?

Or as a non-governmental organization which exists to propagate its ideas?

The Church’s beliefs about man’s place in the universe and about the values that should guide human behaviour are shared by the majority (arguably a relative one) of the population. So its profile is clearly much more than that of an NGO. The reference in the constitution to the country’s religion reinforces such a profile.

On the other hand, its longstanding closeness to a certain kind of state power and the way by which it has sought to defend its material interests at all costs, have undermined much of its legitimacy.

To complicate matters, its current direction seems to have become too opportunistic in approach. Meanwhile its organization has remained weak, rather confused. Position statements are made that swing with ongoing political currents, as if they get chosen according to whether they can best gain prominence in the headlines of the day.

***

Civil service

Over the years, the civil service has developed according to the new imperatives set by ongoing social and economic changes. In many instances, it failed however to achieve the same rate of change as that occurring around it.

Many present the politicisation that in their view has infected the civil service as the leading problem. It looks like they believe that in colonial times the civil service was more effective because it stayed apolitical. For myself, I have huge doubts about whether the colonial civil service was so apolitical then. Though it did generate very able administrators who did great service to the island, it was designed for conditions that were expected not to change.

Naturally, from decade to decade, political leaders sought to ensure that administrators acting “under” their purview would be loyal to the government of the day and its policies.

It’s not this so-called politicisation which creates problems, as much as the lack of respect shown by politicians towards the administrative machine which necessarily functions according to its own logic. No matter how loyal they are, the directors appointed to run the machine must also know how to make it run.

***

Alfred Zarb

I must have known him for the past fifty years. He was one of the first persons I met at the foreign affairs office when I arrived there as a rookie diplomat. He explained how the work was carried out and who was who, in his calm, teasing voice.

Years passed and I still continued to admire his style, as well as – indeed more – the skill he possessed to understand a diplomatic situation from the Maltese perspective. Many times when faced with delicate situations, I saw him perform astutely. He was loyal to the governments of the day and soon gained their confidence. Nonetheless, he still said what he had to say without hesitation.

He reached the top of the diplomatic career by coming up from deep down the ranks, which enabled him to benefit from a vast fund of experience that he was always prepared to draw upon most generously.

The news of his death was deeply saddening. I send my profound condolences to the family of Ambassador Alfred Zarb.