A fortnight ago (31 July), this newspaper carried a strong leading article on the issue of transparency.

It held that, “It is hardly acceptable that, in an EU member State, sensitive information continues to be monopolised for all the world as though it were the private property of the party in government. For these and other reasons, this newspaper deems the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act, as recommended by the Ombudsman, to be a matter of high priority for the nation.”

In the same leading article, this newspaper underlined the fact that the Ombudsman had advanced this proposal as long ago as l997.

It quoted a number of instances where legitimate requests, advanced by the media for information on matters of public interest, were ignored or sidelined.

That leading article made all the right noises; it did not shake the government.

The ruling Nationalist administration was elected to office in l987 on the strength of solemn and unequivocal commitments to run a government by the people for the people

Unequivocal commitments

At that time, the PN electoral manifesto made a clarion call for transparent government – one that does not hide the government’s actions and decisions from the people, but, rather, one that promotes participation in the democratic process by a well-informed citizenry.

The Nationalist Party affirmed solemnly the citizen’s right to information and freedom to exchange views with other citizens, based on adequate information. The right of access to information was to be entrenched.

Much water has since passed under the bridge. Many of those lofty objectives have been honoured only in the breach.

One recalls a speech by the then Minister of Education, Dr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, in mid-September l992, to the effect that a law, providing for the citizen’s right to access to information in matters of direct interest, was being drafted.

Dr Austin Gatt, then PN General Secretary, wrote in the press in another context, some time earlier. He spoke of “the courage to change” and dwelt on the need “to push the country into the 2lst century”. And he drove home the point that “there comes a time where change must come, when it can no longer be held back, when there is an undertone in society which cried out for it”. Famous last words!

Merits of open government

In retrospect, and with what seems to be the tangible evidence of hindsight, we might as well be living in the days of the Grand Masters, whose word was law and whose whims were unchallengeable.

The ruling administration, like others before it, has been prone to hesitate in giving information in sticky situations when so requested, failing to realise the merits of open government,

It is partial to protecting itself from informed criticism. It tends to cover up errors (or worse), instead of bringing recalcitrant bureaucrats to book. It bends over backwards, avoiding inquiries when public outcries ring out, demanding investigation of certain stupefying developments.

Time and again, decision-makers have taken advantage of unsatisfactory situations, with the obvious intent of avoiding informed criticism by the sovereign electorate.

It is unacceptable that the administration of the day should exercise its discretion in this way, creating the impression that it tries to “manage the news” to its own advantage, by releasing information only at its pleasure and convenience, and not when requested to do so by the media or by general public request.

The motor is not working

This has reinforced the general feeling that Parliament, which is the working motor of our Constitution, is not working as it should

In its turn, this raises the issue of constitutional conservatism on the part of those who have been propelled to the top, under the existing rules of the game. They are the last people to see the shortcomings in current arrangements. Although they are in the best position to initiate and engineer change, they opt for a quiet life and exploit their inertia to their advantage.

Our Constitution provides for the separation of powers, with the Executive subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Although there are other, additional, provisions for a range of checks and balances, in real life, the Executive rules the roost. Its power of patronage has no defined limits. The government of the day rules by virtue of a parliamentary majority, backed by tight whipping. Too many MPs in the governing party are supine, and in no mood to provide a real check on their Ministers.

Constitutional shortcomings

In Malta, the law speaks of constitutional rights, but loses its eloquence when it comes to ministerial accountability, even when abuse of political power involves a flagrant breach of human and constitutional rights. In this case, the law is concerned with the victim and overlooks the perpetrator.

We have a system of government which nominally ensures that “the polluter pays”, but allows irresponsible politicians in office to go Scot-free when they trample over citizens’ rights. Instead of holding those politicians personally accountable for the damage they cause, the system makes good for the damage out of public funds and victimises the taxpayer!

This amounts to topsy-turvy democracy that ill fits Malta’s newfound EU status.

Parliament ought to be the shrine of our liberties, and transparency the climate that enhances our freedom.

jgv@ onvol.net.