The standards upon which Nationalist and Labour governments are judged are not the same. What would cause an outcry when proposed by the former is met with indifference when proposed by the latter. While the former's every move is thoroughly scrutinised and appraised, Labour gets away with murder.
Please note however, that I am not complaining here. It may be unfair; it's clearly a case of two weights and two measures. Yet, I consider it an honour for a Nationalist government to have its performance measured by a more stringent yardstick. It signifies that more is expected of a Nationalist government. Nonetheless, I believe it is constructive to compare our current government with its forerunner, if only to gauge how far governance standards have slipped. A recent occurrence provides a good example in this regard.
The way things were then
Soon after the 2008 elections, the government of the day decided to increase the honoraria paid to Cabinet members. There were valid justifications for the move; Cabinet members had lost their Parliamentary honoraria - despite retaining their duties as MPs - and Ministerial honoraria had fallen below salaries for posts with equivalent responsibilities.
The intention to increase MP's honoraria was informally communicated to the Opposition of the time and Labour quietly agreed. After all, a good number of its MPs were also aspiring Ministers. However, two years later, it dawned upon Joseph Muscat that there was a considerable degree of political mileage to be made from the issue. Very ably, he managed to make the government of the day appear as if it had stealthily helped itself to the public purse while nobody - Labour included - was looking. Public opinion was shaped covertly and with particular intent, leaving the Gonzi administration with no choice but to reverse its decision.
The way things are now
The above issue was a victory for Labour, the spoils of which came later, in the form of votes at the polls. But the story did not end there. Firstly, the Muscat Cabinet is set to be an expensive one, leaving a far larger dent in the public coffers than the honoraria increase proposed in 2008 would have. With almost three times as many members as its precursor and a proportionate number of better-paid staff, one would have expected a public outcry. But there was nothing of the sort.
Furthermore, the government was bending over backwards to accommodate any of its members' personal and professional needs and desires:
A Parliamentary Secretary who is unwilling to give up his private practice? No problem, we'll amend the Ministerial Code of Ethics. A backbencher who envies his colleagues sitting in front? We'll remove whatever prohibitions there were on MPs holding executive posts in the public service.
As if that was not enough, Muscat appointed a commission of grandees to look into the matter of Cabinet and Parliamentary salaries. Why was this commission appointed in the first place? Wasn't the withdrawal of the increase supposed to be the final word on the matter?
And what did Muscat's commission conclude? It basically concluded that Ministers' take home pay should double!