Last week I attended the PN’s General Conference by invitation. In view of what is going on behind the scenes it was, of course, interesting; up to a point. Such exercises are there to rally the troops and direct the voting public to tick the spot on the voting paper and what is unsaid is often more important than what is said.
Throughout, I kept asking myself to what extent the speeches I was hearing reflected the concerns of our families and whether the PN truly believes that it is the internal disagreement over divorce that has alienated the public and caused internal strife. After all, the PN has had huge internal disagreements before this – I know, because I was involved in some of them. Therefore I for one don’t think that internal wrangling is the problem – that will probably be resolved in the traditional manner – although a party in disarray is not exactly a vote-getter.
The party had been losing ground long before the divorce referendum. In an article I wrote in November 2009, I had this to say: “Budget 2007 promised “Gejjieni Sod ghal uliedna”. At the moment, each one of “uliedna” carries a tax burden of €11,750, the biggest debt yet to be carried by our children. Budget 2008 promised “Familji fis-Sod”. Do I need to expand? Budget 2009 promised “Responsabbiltà, Sostenibilità, Solidarjetà”. While slogans may be healthy, in that they summarise general policy, ultimately it is the extent of the delivery of what is promised that counts, otherwise is will be more of the usual hype.
A fortnight later, I wrote that when the PN took office in 1987, the National Debt was €163 million (Lm70 million). There was a Posterity Fund of €70 million (Lm30 million+). I added that one has to remember that the government is the guarantor of loans with foreign and local banks taken out by such corporations as Enemalta and the Malta Freeport. There was also the privatisation then of much of the family silver, including Mid-Med Bank, Telemalta, BOV, Middle Sea Insurance, Malta Freeport, Malta Airport, Tug Malta, Sea Malta, the Public Lotto and others. What is the national debt now?
Should I still ask now, as I asked then, what benefits the country has reaped? Mater Dei is still in the news on a daily basis for the wrong reasons. Have we recovered the enormous amount of money invested in Malta House in Brussels? Incredibly, we are still paying for the Delimara plant, even while the government lurches into fresh controversy over the second phase of power generation development.
The policy of throwing money at problems – taxpayers’ money, of course – is still very much alive. Even if the Dockyard saga may have thankfully now faded, Bisazza Street is another example not only of an inability to think things through, but of how casually the extra cost of this shambles will be passed on to us. This is what hurts people and earns the government the title of arrogant and insensitive.
And despite a leaner Cabinet, created to encourage greater efficiency – with which I agree – we still see two ministers at odds with each other over the matter of a hundred metres or so of a street in Sliema. This is what the PN should be contemplating and this is what ought to exercise their consciences.
Why have the country and the party come to such a pass? In my view, the reasons are due to both a deficit in governance and government. Governance is not synonymous with government. Governance is the exercise of power or authority – political, economic, administrative or otherwise – to manage a country’s resources and affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.
Good governance therefore means the competent management of a country’s resources and affairs in a manner that is open, transparent, accountable, equitable and responsive to people’s needs. How many of these principles have been adhered to and how many infringed upon?
Certainly, good governance demands a good sense of direction. Spin apart, is direction really there? In the speeches I heard at the General Conference, it is clear that, for some, principles mean being all things to all men all the time.
Performance is another important part of governance. Only this week we had a Professor Murphy telling us that, in spite of the millions spent on new school buildings, progress in the educational field seems to have stalled for the last six years. The Education Ministry is not the only one in trouble. The results are writ large all over the place. As to the building of consensus – such an integral part of governance – where was this in the twin sagas relating to Valletta, the proposed tunnelling under St John’s co-Cathedral and the building of the new Parliament just to mention the most memorable?
I remember reading in The Telegraph at the time of the scandals in the House of Commons in the UK, that: “Politicians are not doing us an honour by sitting on the green benches; we are doing them an honour by investing in them the power to make decisions about our daily lives as our elected representatives. Too few appear to grasp this point.”
An editorial of 15 June 2010 in The Times spoke about the situation of Parliament and complained that “Once elected, far too many MPs act as if they are a privileged class”. This comment came on the heels of the Speaker’s call, at the Sette Giugno commemoration, for greater respect for Parliament. And yet, added The Times, only a day before a survey showed that Maltese businessmen are more trusted than politicians. A “disquieting” finding, remarked The Times.
When it comes to accountability, I think most would agree that this is a rare plant indeed. Another editorial in The Times of 4 September 2010 complained that “Despite all the codes that have been produced, ethical standards, propriety and diligence seem to be falling by the wayside. Fingers are being pointed at the government which, contrary to what it declares, is not always acting in as transparent a manner as it should.” And this lack of transparency is responsible, to a large degree, for the gap that has been created between the government and the citizen, making the latter feel disempowered. It should not be impossible for the Prime Minister to narrow this gap in the time he has left.
I am going down an unpleasant memory lane because every signpost plainly indicates that the problems of the PN have long been piling up and spin has consistently refused to provide an answer. An editorial on di-ve.com in April reminded its readers that “In his victory speeches [following the PN’s historic third election victory] Dr. Gonzi promised unequivocally that Malta would be a better place in five years’ time. He promised a country with less bureaucracy and more transparency, with a cleaner environment and a stronger economy.”
Dr Gonzi’s lasting and enduring memorial will probably be the way he has steered our country through the bogs and quicksands that line the route of the current, and seemingly intractable, financial crisis, one that might very well see Greece exit the EU in order to repair its finances. It points to how far the country really ought to be thankful to the Prime Minister.
It is not enough, though, and the party needs to ponder far more serious issues than divorce and ought to question where each and every individual conscience lies in relation to so many other vital areas of a government whose frequent inefficiencies and mismanagement have led to a generally perceived notion of corruption in the public administration. It is no use moving the blame on to the civil service. What civil service? If government wants to give the citizen the serious and responsible civil service it deserves and expects, it will have to go back in time and resuscitate the civil service of which Malta once boasted.
I remember Dr. Gonzi stating that he would hang on to his job because he loved it. I just hope that that love still burns strongly enough to help him solve the very serious issues in both his party and his administration.