The last seven months have exposed a most worrying collapse in public standards in Malta. Instead of the overwhelming electoral victory by the governing Labour Party last March leading to a period of stable government, as it steadily takes over the reins of government and starts to implement the programme on which it was elected, Malta has witnessed turbulence, exposure to a constant diet of long-standing as well as more recent corruption, maladministration, nepotism and political polarisation unlike anything witnessed since the 1980s.

If the two parties think that their refusal to compromise and to work together is a demonstration of their political virility, they must be told that they are seriously misreading the public mood. A similar kind of visceral and irrational political spasm has also gripped the United States. The difference between little, democratic Malta and super-power United States is that conflict and brinkmanship are built into the heart of American government, whereas Malta is a parliamentary democracy.

In a parliamentary democracy, it is the central function of our House of Representatives to scrutinise, debate and approve laws. Not to govern the country – which is the role of the executive – but to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to account. It is essentially the role of the Opposition to do this. But the Opposition has no capacity to act. It has to strike a balance between whingeing complaint and constructive suggestion.

But it is no good the Leader of the Opposition lashing out in frustration in all directions. He must learn to pick his battles and to be a constructive Opposition if he is to be effective and, most importantly, if he is to win back the floating voters who deserted his party in droves the last time round.

There is a need to rebuild political trust. The blame for Malta’s turbulence today belongs to both main political parties. One party, PN, is acting like a wounded dog ready to lash out at anything and everything done by the ruling party. While the other, PL, has started acting as though the rules of a liberal parliamentary democracy don’t apply to it – or, if they do, can be applied selectively as and when it chooses. There is a disturbing incipient arrogance creeping in.

A society that is constantly at loggerheads cannot enjoy constructive progress. With no basis of trust, there is no prospect of creating growth or prosperity in the face of the difficult economic challenges that lie ahead for Malta. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should try to tap into people’s instinctive feeling that it is clearly in everyone’s interest to work together. 

To do this, they actively need to break the current cycle of distrust between Labour and Nationalist party supporters in society. And between the two of them. Of course, party leaders may, and will, disagree on policy issues – that is in the nature of a lively parliamentary democracy – but let them do so constructively, civilly and in a temperate manner. Polarisation in society, as we have seen, produces a quagmire in which it becomes impossible for people to have a constructive dialogue, or for reasonable proposals to gain public support. The ability to identify compromise solutions and build consensus should be valued by both government and Opposition.

It is about time both party leaders took a deep breath and resolved to conduct their politics in a more seemly way, starting from a determination to curb their divisive language and to adhere to standards of public behaviour which are ethical.

Ethics in public life are crucial to keeping the entire system of government clean and decent. The Prime Minister has made transparency, accountability and public integrity one of the fundamental themes of his new administration. He has moved to revise the ministerial Code of Ethics, though results have been slow in coming. Worse, some ministers in his Cabinet have grossly abused the existing Code and, regrettably, the Prime Minister has appeared to condone their behaviour – or at least failed publicly to rebuke them as we had been led to believe he would.

A ministerial code should set out clearly the principles underpinning the standards of conduct to be expected of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. They are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety including, importantly, ensuring that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests. Ministers have a paramount duty to comply with the law, to uphold the administration of justice, and to protect the integrity of public life and service.    

A revision of the Code should also therefore lay down the clear principles in public life to which ministers are expected to adhere. These should include commitments to probity and integrity; selflessness, impartiality and the firm desire to render to everyone that which is a person’s due; objectivity, a respect for reason and an appreciation of the wider public good; accountability; transparency and openness; and honesty, equity and fairness.

Any revision of the Code must also tie these ethical principles to the three pillars which are crucial to the stability of our entire system of democratic government: an unwavering commitment to the rule of law; a constant concern for Parliament’s needs and procedures; and an unshakable obligation to uphold democratic values. It may be thought that these are self-evident truths. They are. But the Code should still spell them out so ministers know precisely what they are signing up to.

Well before the last general election, a White Paper was presented to the House of Representatives entitled “More Autonomy, More Accountability”. There was, remarkably, bi-partisan support for it at the time, but the new administration has made no further mention of it. One of the issues it dealt with was the vitally important proposal to set up a mechanism to control the behaviour of Members of Parliament “both inside and outside the House”. The establishment of an Office of Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, based on the Westminster model, was proposed.

The Prime Minister’s wish to re-draft the ministerial Code of Ethics will only amount to so much window-dressing unless it is backed up by the legislative means to hold ministers to account for their personal conduct. The establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards will be an essential element in doing this. Ultimately, however, unless the Prime Minister personally demonstrates that those ministers who stray from the standards laid down will be removed from office, he will fail to achieve the changes to Malta’s politics he desires.

The oil-gate scandals, the cases of corruption in the judiciary and elsewhere, the dysfunctional state of Enemalta have eroded public trust. His overriding objective, and one to which the Leader of the Opposition should give his support, must be to restore public trust in government. The new administration has failed abjectly so far to show that this government will always act in the general interest, not sectoral interests within society. Reversing this perception and promoting transparency, accountability and openness will be essential to building trust in government.