The reputable German sociologist, Max Weber, contended that although, in his view, politics is not an ethical business, there does nevertheless exist a certain minimum of shame and obligation to behave decently, which cannot be violated, even in politics.

There are others who equate public service more closely with ethics and are exigent in their concerns about standards of conduct on the part of all holders of public office.

All the world over, a vast chasm separates public expectations from the practice of notorious politicians and public servants involved in corrupt practices, as well as weaklings in public life who are ensnared in a number of ways.

Indispensable mortar

Morality in public life is the indispensable mortar that holds a healthy society together. In democratic countries, public officers are open to public scrutiny, but the observance of moral standards cannot be done on a nod and a wink. Traditions of upright behaviour have to be supported by established procedures and institutions that will deter and detect wrong-doing.

Different countries seek different remedies. The purpose is in the seeking, because it is not enough to codify a set of rules. The real challenge is in enforcing the rules.

In Britain, which has no written Constitution, what goes for a Constitution is a curious box of tricks. Practice is very often by convention. It has transpired that this is not enough.

In l994, Prime Minister John Major established the Nolan Committee and assigned it the role of “ethical workshop to provide running repairs on standards in public life”.

Lord Nolan’s committee included senior representatives of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as senior public servants.

Gold standards

In his own Cromwellian fashion, Lord Nolan recommended the application of a set of gold standards for a wide swathe of public life, including parliament, central government and the uncharted quango territory.

He proceeded to replace “tacit understandings” with formulas which are more precise and capable of being monitored by those charged with oversight of their application and adherence.

Lord Nolan who, incidentally, sat on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, made a noise worldwide. His committee was instantly recognised as a pace-setter.

In March 1998, Lord Nolan was the keynote speaker at a seminar, held in the committee room of the House of Representatives in Valletta. The seminar took place on the initiative of the Office of the Speaker and the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice (Lord Nolan is a prominent member of the Roman Catholic community in Britain). He also addressed a packed meeting at the headquarters of the Press Club.

Raw nerves

The discussion at those meetings touched on some exposed raw nerves that cause concern in Maltese political life.

In Malta, we have a range of platitudinous codes of ethics, issued on the Authority of the Cabinet Office, and published in succession between January and November l994. These relate to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, employees in the public sector, and board directors in the public sector. The documents speak about “obligations” and “standards”. They have nothing to say on clear cases of transgression.

Since the publication of those codes, numerous allegations were aired in the media, as well as in parliament, meriting independent investigation and scrutiny. More often than not, the relevant facts were lost in the wash of brief controversies, or swept under the carpet. Their memory took the form of skeletons in the cupboard, emerging from time to time to disturb the nation’s conscience.

What caused, and continues to cause, concern is not the public awareness of alleged past misdeeds, but the lack of effective local remedies where abuse is suspected (and, on various occasions, identified)

Unless enforced or followed up formally and systematically, these could be reduced into a mockery or an exercise in hypocrisy.

Public confidence

There have been far too many charges of corruption and abuse of office which dissolved into thin air once the necessary political capital was made in the political arena.

Blatant abuse by a handful of unscrupulous politicians, and the inability or reluctance of the executive to bring the culprits to book, has eroded public confidence in the political class. Upright and honest politicians, who form the majority, are often the casualties in a society that lets the offenders off scot-free.

To its credit, the Labour administration under Dr Alfred Sant, took the plunge and committed itself to introduce legislation to set up the office of an investigating magistrate whose task was to look into allegations of corruption and to prosecute, where necessary, whoever was involved.

The government and the opposition agreed to suspend discussion of the relative Bill in parliament, pending talks between them.

Public expectations

The subject was important enough to warrant public expectation of early results. But, with the change of government, this vital issue fizzled out.

The issue continues to sizzle like a hot potato, with politicians on both sides of the political divide seemingly paralysed or otherwise immobilised. Meanwhile, democracy is the victim and public interest the casualty.

Equally worrying is the inability of the political parties to agree on the funding and the public scrutiny of the accounts of political parties.

At a certain stage, a committee of the House nibbled at this second hot potato, but no constructive, agreed solution was ever found – even though this topic is considered to be of sinister potential and, possibly, open to foreign interference.

In the final analysis, public opinion wants a single answer to a single question. If politicians cannot run their own affairs with dispatch and efficiency, how can they run other people’s affairs?

The onus for taking the initiative lies squarely on the government of the day. It is the majority party in parliament that has the decisive say in setting the agenda of the House. As much as it is justified in claiming due merit for its pioneering initiatives, it deserves censure when it drags its feet, and, more so, when it shrinks from brandishing the proper democratic credentials.

[email protected] reputable German sociologist, Max Weber, contended that although, in his view, politics is not an ethical business, there does nevertheless exist a certain minimum of shame and obligation to behave decently, which cannot be violated, even in politics.

There are others who equate public service more closely with ethics and are exigent in their concerns about standards of conduct on the part of all holders of public office.

All the world over, a vast chasm separates public expectations from the practice of notorious politicians and public servants involved in corrupt practices, as well as weaklings in public life who are ensnared in a number of ways.

Indispensable mortar

Morality in public life is the indispensable mortar that holds a healthy society together. In democratic countries, public officers are open to public scrutiny, but the observance of moral standards cannot be done on a nod and a wink. Traditions of upright behaviour have to be supported by established procedures and institutions that will deter and detect wrong-doing.

Different countries seek different remedies. The purpose is in the seeking, because it is not enough to codify a set of rules. The real challenge is in enforcing the rules.

In Britain, which has no written Constitution, what goes for a Constitution is a curious box of tricks. Practice is very often by convention. It has transpired that this is not enough.

In l994, Prime Minister John Major established the Nolan Committee and assigned it the role of “ethical workshop to provide running repairs on standards in public life”.

Lord Nolan’s committee included senior representatives of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as senior public servants.

Gold standards

In his own Cromwellian fashion, Lord Nolan recommended the application of a set of gold standards for a wide swathe of public life, including parliament, central government and the uncharted quango territory.

He proceeded to replace “tacit understandings” with formulas which are more precise and capable of being monitored by those charged with oversight of their application and adherence.

Lord Nolan who, incidentally, sat on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, made a noise worldwide. His committee was instantly recognised as a pace-setter.

In March 1998, Lord Nolan was the keynote speaker at a seminar, held in the committee room of the House of Representatives in Valletta. The seminar took place on the initiative of the Office of the Speaker and the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice (Lord Nolan is a prominent member of the Roman Catholic community in Britain). He also addressed a packed meeting at the headquarters of the Press Club.

Raw nerves

The discussion at those meetings touched on some exposed raw nerves that cause concern in Maltese political life.

In Malta, we have a range of platitudinous codes of ethics, issued on the Authority of the Cabinet Office, and published in succession between January and November l994. These relate to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, employees in the public sector, and board directors in the public sector. The documents speak about “obligations” and “standards”. They have nothing to say on clear cases of transgression.

Since the publication of those codes, numerous allegations were aired in the media, as well as in parliament, meriting independent investigation and scrutiny. More often than not, the relevant facts were lost in the wash of brief controversies, or swept under the carpet. Their memory took the form of skeletons in the cupboard, emerging from time to time to disturb the nation’s conscience.

What caused, and continues to cause, concern is not the public awareness of alleged past misdeeds, but the lack of effective local remedies where abuse is suspected (and, on various occasions, identified)

Unless enforced or followed up formally and systematically, these could be reduced into a mockery or an exercise in hypocrisy.

Public confidence

There have been far too many charges of corruption and abuse of office which dissolved into thin air once the necessary political capital was made in the political arena.

Blatant abuse by a handful of unscrupulous politicians, and the inability or reluctance of the executive to bring the culprits to book, has eroded public confidence in the political class. Upright and honest politicians, who form the majority, are often the casualties in a society that lets the offenders off scot-free.

To its credit, the Labour administration under Dr Alfred Sant, took the plunge and committed itself to introduce legislation to set up the office of an investigating magistrate whose task was to look into allegations of corruption and to prosecute, where necessary, whoever was involved.

The government and the opposition agreed to suspend discussion of the relative Bill in parliament, pending talks between them.

Public expectations

The subject was important enough to warrant public expectation of early results. But, with the change of government, this vital issue fizzled out.

The issue continues to sizzle like a hot potato, with politicians on both sides of the political divide seemingly paralysed or otherwise immobilised. Meanwhile, democracy is the victim and public interest the casualty.

Equally worrying is the inability of the political parties to agree on the funding and the public scrutiny of the accounts of political parties.

At a certain stage, a committee of the House nibbled at this second hot potato, but no constructive, agreed solution was ever found – even though this topic is considered to be of sinister potential and, possibly, open to foreign interference.

In the final analysis, public opinion wants a single answer to a single question. If politicians cannot run their own affairs with dispatch and efficiency, how can they run other people’s affairs?

The onus for taking the initiative lies squarely on the government of the day. It is the majority party in parliament that has the decisive say in setting the agenda of the House. As much as it is justified in claiming due merit for its pioneering initiatives, it deserves censure when it drags its feet, and, more so, when it shrinks from brandishing the proper democratic credentials.

[email protected]