For politicians as well as the media, it is standard operating procedure at year’s end and in the first weeks of a new year to survey the past and to take measure of the future.

In Malta’s polarised political climate, this exercise is more surreal than real. It takes the form of associating one’s favourite politics with the sublime, and demonising the politics of the adversaries.

The electorate is becoming increasingly inured to this aberration, which has the obnoxious odour of hypocrisy.

A democratic electorate wants its elected representatives – of whatever political orientation – to focus on the efficient administration of its national affairs and on the diligent husbandry of the nation’s resources. It wants transparency. It expects accountability. And it insists on its sovereign right to review the performance of its representatives every so often.

It is within the ambit of these co-ordinates that politicians and the media are supposed to take their bearings at the turn of every year. More often than not, they don’t. Some suffer from political myopia. Some are incapable of overcoming their phobias, nurtured during the 1970s.

Others know nothing better than intone stereotyped slogans and mantras, with their eyes fixed on their job.

Time to grow up

That is why, on the one hand, the government side basked, in the abstract, on its “new way of doing politics”, and, alternatively, on the distant vistas open to Malta through the deployment of EU funds. It scrupulously avoided open discussion on Malta’s economic predicament, and how it came to pass that under its direction Malta’s economic performance last year was the worst of all EU accession States.

The Opposition, on its part, realising the groundswell of electoral disenchantment, took advantage of the wind blowing in its sails, and applied itself to constructive interaction with civil society in order to prepare itself as an alternative government.

It is a case of the pot, on each side, letting off steam and calling the kettle black!

It is time to grow up and cast off the tattered and dirty garments, reminiscent of feudal and colonial times, when today’s citizen was still a serf, and when the rule of the game was called ‘divide and rule”.

Imperatives of survival

The imperatives of survival, as well as the elementary rules of common sense, demand that, where the uppermost national interest so demands, ALL the people’s elected representatives should have a say on the ground rules of government and their observance. These rules have to be hammered out with the consent of the governed, and with the full-blooded participation of civil society.

This is not the concern of Brussels. Brussels keeps Malta’s economic performance under close scrutiny. We empowered Brussels to enforce, with our consent, the free movement of goods, capital and persons across the territory of the European Union. We share with Brussels our commitment to the rule of law.

But, as Professor Ralf Dahrendorf had recent occasion to underline, the rule of law “requires, not just a Constitution but, almost more importantly, an independent judiciary that is sensitive to violations of constitutional and other legitimate rules”.

He elaborated by saying, “We know from history that it takes but one Enabling Law to unhinge the rule of law, and replace it by an ideological tyranny.” It happened when Hitler came to power in Professor Dahrendorf’s own country.

Role of civil society

This is where civil society assumes relevance. A plurality of civic associations and activities – regulated but not controlled by the State, and free to express its views and even to demonstrate its (diverse) sentiments publicly – is the most powerful pillar of the liberal order. Professor Dahrendorf rightly upholds that a vibrant civil society will mobilise when the rule of law is violated, and it can also check the illiberal inclinations of democratic majorities.

We are beginning to see Maltese civil society taking shape and coming to life. But we have yet to hear ringing national outcries against abuse of power, especially when such power has been democratically gained, and against inertia and dilatoriness of all kinds, ranging from the collection of revenue arrears, to the administration of justice.

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

‘Winner-takes-all’ formula

Although, we run a constitutional democracy, the system rests on the “electoral-winner-takes-all” basis.

The government of the day takes its pick from the senior civil service when it comes to top appointments. It appoints ambassadors at its pleasure. It exercises the power of patronage at its whim – all without scrutiny from outside, much less in terms of constitutional arrangements to guarantee impartiality, or objectivity, to the taxpaying electorate.

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. When public outcries ring out, demanding investigation of certain stupefying developments, it bends over backwards to avoid inquiries.

It has repeatedly reacted negatively and irritably when aspects of its operations were criticised by the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General.

This, and more, highlights the vulnerability and the weakness of the Maltese democratic adventure.

Exclusive system

In short, the system is exclusive and old. It is designed to concentrate power in one pair of hands. It has been well-described by an insider, who knew the inner workings of the PN more than anyone else – namely Censu Tabone, former Minister and President of the Republic, and whose thoughts were captured by Professor Frond in his biography Censu Tabone: The Man and his Century.

This is what he wrote: “Unlike other European countries, in Malta, even if some groups may share friendships, ideas or interests, there are no open factions, and any criticism of the leader would risk branding the critical or dissenting thinker as a traitor (sic). The hegemony and longevity in leadership epitomised in the past by the ‘reigns’ of Gonzi, Borg Olivier and Mintoff, is seen decidedly as a negative factor, working in favour of the power-wielding caucus of ‘inner sanctum’ secretaries, advisers, businessmen, politicians or other confidantes – il-klikka tal poter – to the exclusion of all others in the wings. A static sameness in authority aids and abets time-serving, parasitic elements who appropriate power even if they represent no electorate. It emarginates talent and potential, while simultaneously reducing vigour and enthusiasm. Collective responsibility in Cabinet and obeying the whip can be trying enough, and required for the working of democracy, but the trappings of a veritable ‘leader principle’ hierarchical structure, as experienced rather emphatically in Malta, are worse...”

Life after Censu has never changed. Within the fossilised PN structure, power is the exclusive preserve of the “inner sanctum”, which is an active agent of polarisation.

Motor is not working

A worm has eaten its way into the apple. There is a growing realisation that Parliament, which is the working motor of our constitution, has not worked as it should have done. Many politicians who were propelled to the top under the existing rules of the game, did not see the above-mentioned shortcomings. They were in a position to initiate and engineer change. Instead, they opted for a quiet life and exploited their inertia to their advantage.

There are solidly entrenched politicians who are determined to maintain the status quo so that they and their successors will remain in power for decades to come.

It may well be that, in the absence of a rotation of power, it will also be assured that no elected successors will turn up to open the files and to investigate the way some things gave been running for so many years.

Seen from this perspective, it should come as no surprise if the champions of the status quo would seek to control the media, in pursuit of their long-term interests.

What is to be the outcome for democracy in Malta? The answer depends on whether we destroy the worm before the apple begins to rot.

jgv@ onvol.net