It has been said that countries are like fruit: the worms are always inside. Malta is no exception.

Lightning, usually anticipating thunderstorms arising from allegations of corruption, criminality and abuse of power, often illuminates the Maltese political firmament. Ever since the seventies, charges arising from such allegations have become a leitmotif.

On most occasions, the allegations come from Opposition quarters. Although many of these allegations begin to make the rounds sotto voce, they are capable of reaching high pitch, and are characterised by outraged vehemence.

Only rarely have there been prosecutions, except in the case of small fry. When allegations of corruption and abuse of power were made, investigations were invariably not held. When investigations took place, they were not distinguished by transparency.

If there has, in fact, been corruption in the past, the criminals and others who took advantage of their authority in the past, escaped with their ill-gotten gains.

When charges or allegations were made, causing some dust to be stirred on the public stage, everything was forgotten after a brief flurry of interest either in the media or in the public forum.

In 1987, a Nationalist administration was elected to office on a promise that it would eradicate “root and branch” all traces of corruption, which, at that time, was declared to have been “institutionalised”.

The administration was all fire and fury, with charges of blatant corruption in the form of tixhim (bribery or sleaze). A commission against corruption was set up. A long-winded inquiry into irregularities in the affairs of Mid-Med Bank – conducted behind closed doors from beginning to end – practically drew a blank.

In short, hardly a mouse emerged from the mountain, due exception being made in a few isolated cases and others where human rights infringements led to successful prosecutions.

The rest was lost in the wash or allowed to evaporate by the law of prescription.

There ARE rules as well as laws against sleaze, palm-greasing and abuse of power. But it takes more than innuendo and repeated, noisy charges to bring suspects before the tribunal of justice.

Over the years, the situation became even more problematic with the emergence of many quangos, more remote from parliamentary control than the average government department, and all allowing space for surreptitious decision-making and cosy networks.

It was not long ago that we were regaled with the incredible episode of blatant abuse at the Voice of the Mediterranean radio station, initially reported by the Office of the Auditor-General, and later the subject of discussion in the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament – which withered on the vine.

There have been furious charges of irregularity in the affairs of the Malta Maritime Authority, the Malta Transport Authority and Mepa, all of which either vanished in thin air, or have been smothered in open-ended “police investigations”.

This, and more, occurred under the shadow of a Permanent Commission Against Corruption, which, to most intents and purposes, has proved to be toothless. We have no Whistleblower Act, no Freedom of Information legislation and no legislation to empower autonomous magisterial investigations. Such magisterial inquiries as are held are open ended and some of them drag on for years.

Democracy needs greater, not less, accountability. The interests of democracy demand that accountability should not end in Parliament.

In cases of corruption and abuse of power, accountability acquits itself by reference to impartial, judicial inquiries held in public or by outright reference to the courts.

In such cases, impartiality and transparency go together.

Politics will always provide a lot of leeway to those who wield power and exercise authority. Mutual back-scratching has traditionally been the stuff of politics, and local interests will always find ways and means to grow fat by sleight of hand in an environment shielded from the public gaze.

Patronage rules

It becomes suspect if and when it is wielded clumsily or irresponsibly, in favour of vested interests, which expect a qui pro quo or more, in return for surreptitious donations or other forms of support.

It is equally suspect if it surrenders to the avaricious demands of politicians or faceless, mysterious forces expert in back-stage manipulation for profit.

In such circumstances, lilies that fester become far more malodorous than weeds.

The best and most reliable antidote is a propensity for upright behaviour and candour. This carries even more weight when it comes from politicians in office rather than in Opposition.

The media can play a vital role as watchdog of the public interest by taking investigative initiatives, by demanding the highest standards of rectitude from politicians of all shades, from public servants and business interests alike, and by aligning themselves firmly with the forces that fight against political arrogance.

Man’s frailty and the corrosive quality of power make explosive chemistry that is capable of blowing up democracy.

Eternal vigilance against corruption and abuse is vital to democracy.

But vigilance is useless unless those in office take effective measures to assuage the thirst for justice and democratic rectitude.

The least they can do is to chase criminals who have never been pinned down, and who continue to feast on their ill-gotten gains under the very nose of a scandalised public opinion.

John F. Kennedy once said that the basis of effective government is public confidence. If public confidence is eroded beyond a point, it is not the effectiveness of government that comes into question, but its survival.

[email protected]