Although the Budget debate is imminent, the government has, quite understandably, kept its cards close to its chest. With a general election looming on the political horizon, it seeks to bend over backwards and accommodate electoral yearnings for relief. On the other hand, it is hard pressed by the EU to stick to financial discipline and to converge towards the criteria set at Maastricht.

Since Malta acceded to the EU, it is to the government’s credit that it has worked hard to get rid of the millstone hanging round its neck – a predicament largely of its own making.

There is no denying the fact that, in the long run, Malta’s economy will take off significantly if we succeed in increasing our foreign earnings by boosting our productivity, and by seeking opportunities in overseas markets. But this is sooner said than done. In any case, it will take time in the best of circumstances. It will involve hard work, plenty of enterprise, and a modicum of consensus between the social partners.

Core problem

In the short run, the core problem continues to be that of reining in public expenditure. It relates to waste, unbridled commitments, inadequate central control and bad management.

It is in the national interest that this issue is analysed objectively and that the ensuing debate will not miss the wood for the trees, with the participants engaging in skirmishes about side issues instead of concentrating on what has been, for long, a lack of managerial acumen at policy-making level.

The point I am making is that while the main thrust of government policy may have been in the right direction, the management of that policy was, at best, weak-kneed, and, at worst, rudderless, with Malta’s scant resources often going to waste in significant amounts. The root of all evil was the “money no problem” philosophy, that led to the present predicament.

The issue is not about such sound and productive investments that have been made and which will hopefully pay for themselves over time. It is about other precious resources that were dissipated for reasons of profligacy, very often because of lack of strong central control. Related to this, was lack of accountability.

I remember myself recalling, four or five years ago, in another section of the press, how, way back in l989, when the public service reform commission published its first report on the organisation of the public service, it was remarked that “it is odd that the sovereign electorate, in whose name thousands of decisions are taken daily, is not taken into the consideration of the decision makers”.

The commission pointedly expressed the view that “the time has come to subject decisions taken within the terms of approved policy, particularly those that affect individuals, to the scrutiny of the affected party”. If a single individual is considered to be entitled to be informed, surely the electorate has superior rights.

The commission pointed its finger at the poor delineation of roles, which then featured as a priority issue.

Confusion and Ambiguities

Commenting on this weak spot, the commission referred to “confusion over the roles of ministers, parliamentary secretaries, permanent secretaries and heads of department”. It referred to “ambiguities posed by the presence of a large number of persons, who are not public officers in the constitutional meaning of the term, but who are paid out of public funds, and who function in an official capacity” and to the “anomalous relationship between the central agencies and the line departments in matters concerning finance and staff”.

This system bred obvious weaknesses, particular loss of structure and unclear rules.

The reform commission made a case for “an urgent need to restore credibility in management systems” and emphasised that the issue was “at the heart of the debate about administrative reform”. It declared that the “the consensus in other countries is that decentralisation is necessary for the public service to function efficiently and effectively, indeed that is a condition of good management”. The central theme of all this is accountability.

The commission was specific on the issue. It insisted on tough action to root out patronage, corruption, and incompetence, which means, in its own words, “exposing impropriety and incompetence, imposing quick, effective penalties upon defaulters, adjusting administrative procedures that facilitate impropriety or compound the effects of incompetence”.

To emphasise its concern, the reform commission expressed worry at “the scant evidence of effective action against negligent and incompetent officials” among other matters.

Public service ethics

Public service ethics also featured in the broader questions of conduct in public life raised by the reform commission. Specifically, the public service is a public institution. As part of the government framework, it participates in the political process by which decisions are taken on behalf of the national community.

“Therefore,” argued the commission, “ there cannot be two standards of conduct, one for civil servants and one for politicians. Both share a duty to a high ethic: namely good government.”

These are fine, ringing words. In many respects, they have produced, with hindsight, a hollow echo.

It could not be said, with hand on heart, that all government corporations and enterprises have been efficiently managed in a manner which made them accountable, first to the ministers concerned and, eventually, to Parliament. Boards operating in terms of company law, often with their own independent auditors, have generally administered substantial investments.

Evidence was available from time to time, indicating that some of these boards often operated in fits and starts. They did not abide by the same criteria when it came to spending public funds on promotion, hospitality, transport and so on.

Some of these boards ran amok, competing between themselves in unseemly shows of prodigality with no apparent checks. To this very day, the affairs of the now-defunct Voice of the Mediterranean Radio station and the Malta Tourist Authority (under the penultimate chairman) still raise eyebrows and mystify public opinion.

Accountability – a myth

The point of all this is that many years after the public service reform, which seriously aggravated the haemorrhage afflicting the Exchequer, accountability continues to be a myth.

Breaches of discipline, errors and cases of incompetence come to light and go unpunished. No one has ever been brought to book for hiding the facts from a minister, let alone the sovereign electorate.

Chairmen of government boards, enterprises and authorities seem to continue to harbour the thought that their fiefs are like states with a state, when, in fact, they are accountable to Parliament, which authorises the advance of public funds. And senior civil servants continue to run circles around the office of the Auditor General as evidenced by the annual reports from the latter’s office.

Elected ministers are accountable to taxpayers for the performance of their ministries and of public institutions within their bailiwick.

Yet, Parliament has not found a way to hold them to account when ministerial performance is found seriously wanting.

In my view, this exposes the government’s – any government’s—soft underbelly. It explains why the cost of government continues to escalate, notwithstanding repeated declarations of resolve to remedy matters.

The mantras have ceased to convince.

Meanwhile, the state of the roads in many areas deteriorates, the public transport service continues to rely on buses which have been in continuous service for umpteen years, crime and drug abuse rear their ugly heads, the problem of delayed justice dispensed by the courts continues to defy solution and to worry even the judiciary.

This brings us back to where we started. It takes good management to run a tribe. And there is no good management without accountability.

[email protected]