Slowly, glacier-like, things do change in this minuscule republic.
We all remember the undeveloped yet substantial democracy we inherited from the British when we became independent. Since then, we have moved on – we became a fully-fledged republic, shook off medieval and feudal subservience to the Church, fixed the majority rule in a way that today satisfies all, etc.
Our House of Representatives has also developed – and I am not referring solely to the move from The Palace to its own proper house. It used to be broadcast only on solemn occasions: today every sitting and every committee meeting is beamed direct to whoever wants to watch it. Committees have been created and they now have a life of their own. And in a bill under discussion at the moment, Parliament will achieve the autonomy it did not previously have.
I think there is now an opportunity to go even further. In a few weeks’ time the Ombudsman’s term comes to an end. Now the Ombudsman, as well as the Auditor General, is appointed by a vote of the House. The Head of State, the President, is chosen by a vote in the House too.
Let us for the moment restrict this suggestion to those posts which must be voted on by the House. My suggestion is to hold hearings before a select committee or the House in its entirety before the actual vote.
Other countries have been using this system for years and years. In America, for instance, any public appointment from Secretary of State to a simple ambassador faces the same procedure. This system is also used in other countries. It is also used in the European Parliament not just with regard to Commissioners but also to members of the Court of Auditors.
But let us, as I said earlier, restrict this innovation at first to the three posts I mentioned before – President of the Republic, Auditor General, and Ombudsman. I am sure that any person who has been chosen for this high office is capable of facing the grilling.
Eventually such a system could and should be extended downwards – to Ministers and to holders of significant posts, from the Commissioner of Police to Permanent Secretaries. The aim and intention of this suggestion is to do away with the idea or myth that a top appointment in the government service is an exclusive prerogative of the minister or the prime minister who can appoint anyone without being accountable to anyone.
If we think about it, it is only fitting that such a procedure be also applied to those who are being chosen for a position of trust – to ensure there are no hidden skeletons in the cupboard and also to ensure that candidates know what is being asked of them in these positions. The real qualification for a person in a position of trust must not be that this person is trusted by his Minister but rather that this person can be trusted to do the job.
I would extend it even further: just as ministers have to declare their assets to ensure they do not get rich through their posts, these persons of trust should also be asked to declare their assets before and after taking up the job or office. This is crucially important in the cases of people dealing with assets such as land, which have a habit of disappearing or suddenly making someone rich.
A hearing may also delve into the candidate’s opinion on the matter in his/her remit, what the candidate intends to do in the post, and so on.
It may be said that things being as they are, the vote will be a foregone conclusion with government members on one side and Opposition members on the other. That may not always be the case. And perhaps one day Parliament will to do away with another great rule only it has – that every vote has to be an open vote with no secret ballot allowed. A look at the procedure in other parliaments – for instance the Italian one – shows this to be the exception, not the rule.
The aim, as in all the other moves that Parliament has taken lately, is to increase openness, accountability and to widen the exercise of democracy. The progress registered over the past years must not be stopped.
[email protected]