As long ago as l9l7, Max Weber, the father of modern sociology, remarked that although politics is not an ethical business, there exists nevertheless “a certain minimum of shame and obligation to behave decently, which cannot be violated with impunity, even in politics”.

It was not before 1994 that British Prime Minister John Major informed the Mother of Parliaments that he proposed to establish a Commission, chaired by Lord Nolan, to provide “running repairs of standards of public life”.

One of the early decisions of the Nolan inquiry was to codify the practices deemed not only desirable, but also essential, to deter wrongdoing in an area where politicians traditionally operated on a nod and a wink.

Before moving on to the nitty-gritty, Lord Noland drew up the much-acclaimed “Seven Principles” which were to apply to British ministers, civil servants, Members of Parliament and UK MEPs, members and senior staff of all non-government public bodies and the National Health Service, non-ministerial office holders, and other senior officers of bodies discharging publicly-financed functions, and elected and senior officers of local authorities.

Seven principles

These “seven principles of public life” bear reproduction in full:

Selfishness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interest relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

In effect, the Nolan Committee codified a set of gold standards of exceptional lustre and rigour to cover the whole swathe of public life and activities. These standards are capable of being monitored by those charged with supervising their adherence and application.

Questions

These seven principles are far more succinct than the highfaluting, solemn language of the local Code of Ethics for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, board directors and public sector employees. The latter codes were published in the year the Nolan Committee was set up. They are at once comprehensive and verbose. But do they begin to satisfy, factually or in spirit, the famous Nolan standards? Are the chairmen and members of so many quangos, set up with such abandon, habitually appointed “on merit”? Are holders of public office in Malta “as open as possible about the decisions and actions that they take”? (Mater Dei Hospital, Brindisi port, the purchase of property in Brussels and so on)

Have ministers been “”as open as possible”, and were they upfront with accurate information when they systematically built up a structural deficit and a mountain of debt, while assuring the electorate that the country’s finances were “on a sound footing”? Are ministers and senior civil servants under sufficient scrutiny, particularly when serious irregularities are detected and reported by the Auditor General, or when they erupt in court cases, to name but two areas where the will to follow up is conspicuous by its absence?

Why is there an ingrained, almost endemic resistance to public calls for independent judicial inquiries, when malodorous incidents relating to possible corruption cry to high heaven for accountability?

What sort of “leadership and example” is being offered when patronage has been transformed into an instrument of capricious clientelism and political partisanship?

In one way or another, all the Nolan principles have been breached in these islands before and after the EU flag was ceremoniously unfurled at campaign meetings heralding a New Spring and a New Order.

Cancerous affliction

It is this cancerous affliction that has inhibited good governance and restrained development and growth. It is what gives substance and meaning to the time-honoured Maltese saying that “the fish starts to stink at the head”.

The time to put our house in order in this regard is long overdue. This is a non-partisan issue that deserves a place at the top of the agenda of Maltese politics.

Before this vital issue is satisfactorily resolved, Maltese democracy will remain hostage to unscrupulous politicians who rule the roost.

There are honest and honourable politicians, on each side of the political divide, who aspire to clean government and who hunger and thirst for reform. Political polarisation keeps them apart and neutralises their potential. The urge and the will to break away from the status quo must come from an enlightened electorate. And surely, by now, the Maltese electorate ought to have assimilated the first lesson of democratic governance, which states that “in a viable democracy, the people get the government they deserve”.

It is for the electorate to choose whether it will govern or be governed. After all, government is a trust and ministers and public officers are trustees – and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people (Henry Clay, Lexington Speech 1829).

Thomas Paine had spoken in the same vein much earlier when he held that “governments arise either out of the people or over the people” (The Rights of Man 1791).

Forty years of experience as citizens of an independent State ought to persuade Maltese electors that no government has ever been beneficent when its attitude was that it knew, more than anyone else, what was best for the people.

The only freedom consists in people taking care of the government. It takes time for this culture to take root. NGOs, the media and, indeed, the Church, have not, so far, distinguished themselves in disseminating this culture. More’s the pity.

I have reproduced, verbatim, the foregoing, which is the full text of an article I wrote for this newspaper published on 6 February 2005.

“Since then, the Maltese electorate has been regaled with the episode involving the Voice of the Mediterranean. It was taken aback by the government’s decision to extend the development zone without prior notice. It has been irritated, over and over again, by MEPA’s perplexing decisions, which have often provoked public protests. There have been repeated instances of unexplained budget overruns, while the burden of taxation takes its toll out of the economy. And much more.”

Isn’t this proof positive that, in this sultry, tight, little island, time stands still?

The ossified Maltese body politic is in the grip of the joint forces of the status quo and the ancien régime.

There is only one escape route – and its name is Change!

[email protected]