It is a fact of life that corruption is widespread in certain countries, and in some has reached pandemic proportions. It would be a mistake to assume that it has, like Asian flu, indigenous origins. Corruption has been known, at certain moments, to infect European countries recognised as the cradle of Western civilisation.

In Italy, the Christian Democratic Party, once considered to be the political representative on earth of confessional capitalism, was laid waste, and many of its erstwhile senior leaders were invited to help the carabinieri with their inquiries.

As was the former socialist leader, who went into self-imposed exile in Tunisia where he died some time ago.

In Britain, home of parliamentary democracy, there have been a series of reports involving parliamentary impropriety.

In America, one hears about successive investigations arising from allegations of impropriety by politicians.

Corruption undermines established standards of public life. It damages the institutions of government, social cohesion and the management of the economy.

Democracy is no guarantee against graft. In many a place, corrupt elements have managed to crawl into the woodwork and re-emerge, time and time again. Allegations of corruption regularly lead to the downfall of this or that government and to the dismissal or resignation of disgraced politicians whose hands have been caught in the till or who have been tainted by bribery.

This is because liberal democracy is more likely to see corruption exposed, restrained or rendered more difficult.

The Rule of law

A marketplace that is free and fair to all, and an economic system that is purged of, or at least resistant to, graft are more likely in a free society that prizes the most essential of software – the rule of law. In that case, everyone is subject to the law, irrespective of one’s political or economic status.

The rule of law is not meant to justify coercion by the powerful, or to cover up situations embarrassing to the government of the day. It is meant to be comprehensive and wholly impartial, to be applied without fear or favour. It is not a ceremonial hulk. It lives and breathes and constrains just as it enables.

It is deliberately meant to act as a brake, so that liberty does not slide and slither into licence. It is meant to draw lines in the sand, to protect the weak from the strong, and to define public interest in an orderly and balanced way.

The rule of law ideally acquires the moral authority to do all this by the extent to which it can demonstrate its own even-handedness.

After all, if the process itself is suspect, who will willingly obey the law?

As the dry rot of corruption never ceases to eat away at the heart of democracy, the rule of law has to be constantly buttressed.

Malta context

In the Malta context, why not provide for public investigators to take an independent initiative and carry out an investigation – preferably in open forum and under conditions of transparency – when serious allegations of corruption are made and, in particular, when there are allegations involving fraud on a big scale and the mismanagement of public funds?

Why has no legislation been enacted to protect whistle blowers who are in a position to expose corruption at source?

Why is it that various investigations involving allegations of sleaze and corruption took years, only to peter out to the point where they assumed the status of irrelevancies?

In an open society, there is room for a proper and desirable tension between public officials (especially elected officials) and the media. The absence of such tension is a hallmark of societies that are either not fully open or not free.

I have raised these points before but they have not been taken up for debate by the media.

* * *

Democratic politicians may not think that media criticism of them is informed or fair. Sometimes it so happens. But democratic politicians must recognise that media criticism is part of the process that makes them accountable and that reins in those “too hungry for power and advancement”.

Freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) is not absolute. But, in its right measure, it is the fuel that activates the engine of a free, democratic society. It provides a safety valve for tensions and social pressures. It provides some of the means that make it

possible for citizens to

participate in decision-

making. It helps check abuse and corruption, and can actively help to smoke out corrupt politicians who abuse power. The media is not an efficient watchdog if it does not bark!

An active press, vigilant, investigative and enterprising, is therefore an indispensable agent in the fight against corruption.

I would say it makes the difference between a viable democracy and one that is softened, or otherwise manipulated, by corruption in its many forms.

[email protected]