So there are rules governing how much each candidate should spend in elections whether local or for the European Parliament. I won’t go into the question of whether there should be any limit at all on how much a candidate spends, either of his own money or of what he manages to collect. After all, do any of the two main parties accept any limitation as to how much they spend on an election or where their money comes from? Surely what is good for the party in general is good for the individual parts that make up the same party! But that is another argument.
So there are limitations which are very well known to one and all. After the recent European Parliament elections, the spending of certain candidates was challenged. The issue of how much each spent suddenly came to the fore. With it came the issue of the oath each candidate has to take when declaring his expenses. After all this is a Christian country – sort of – and Christian values have a habit of occasionally rearing their heads. The issue suddenly became a source of much embarrassment to both parties and their leaders who had obviously ignored it until it arose.
But it proved to be a storm in a teacup, just one more hiccup. The Electoral Commission that administers the oath said it was not up to them to verify whether such an oath was being taken lightly or not. They were not, after all, Father Confessor. Their job was to give the candidate a crucifix to kiss and a declaration to make. End of a nasty job! What they had to say to each other afterwards would be really interesting to know.
The leaders of the two parties, for once equally caught in flagrante delicto, decided, in the interests of harmony and good governance, to close ranks.
Like they did when they changed the Constitution in the interest of their two parties previous to the last general election.
Like they did when all MPs agreed to award themselves a hefty rise to compensate for the cost of living; a rise naturally that was not awarded to the citizens of these islands. But then their needs, surely, cannot be on the same level as those of their masters!
Like they did when both parties decided to hide the millions of euros they were receiving from the EU to subsidise their activities.
Like they did when they decided to make common cause over the problem of illegal immigration (which meant not commenting on its effects in public especially during the election campaign) until naughty Joseph apparently broke the silence in order to make political capital out of it, or because he suddenly saw, in his own words, a red light.
Like they did when they both rushed through the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The list is longer than the few items mentioned above, and there are quite a few people who know the facts behind the public posturing, but keep silent because it is not in their interest to speak. The ordinary citizen of this democratic country has to wait until by some quirk or other, yet another item is revealed to add to the list of shame.
Shame did I say? What shame? Does anybody care? The most damning indictment of this nation’s political morals was made when in one of the usual election post-mortems, it was stated that accusations of corruption had not affected the result. In other words, so long as my team wins, I shouldn’t bother whether we had bribed half of the players on the other side, and/or the referee, and/or both linesmen. The important thing is to win; how, is neither here nor there. Do I hear somebody asking for the address of Malta’s Christian values?
The answer to that question seems to be that our values have migrated. And, since living on a desert island should not be on anybody’s agenda, perhaps those of us who care should all migrate as well. After all we are being told that in the not too distant future, climate change will see to it that these islands revert to what they once were: hot, waterless, uninhabitable and, above all, barren.
Dr Josie Muscat is Leader,
Azzjoni Nazzjonali