In the conduct of public affairs, an essential challenge is that of remaining credible. Is the discourse that makes proposals worthy of being taken at face value? Can one believe in the explanations that are being given about the conduct of affairs?

It is inevitable that such questions become crucial in a business whose vital aim is to convince the greatest number of people to agree with, and support, a given line of action – or at least not to oppose it.

Beyond the credibility of any given message though, there is also that of the individuals concerned. Thus, for one who already enjoys a certain personal credibility, it is easier to endow the message he/she transmits with the required credibility. Still, the problem is that usually for every person who truly believes in Mr or Mrs X, there is another person who feels the contrary. So the need remains to infuse the message being transmitted with the maximum dose of authenticity.

At present, to make the situation more awkward, the social media have compounded the problem by creating new ways to formulate political messages – frequently based on methods that are far from genuine. Even citizens who are not fully aware of this, suspect that they are being manipulated. Such a suspicion hardly reinforces belief in any proposal being made.     

***

Newcomers

Quite a high percentage of MEPs in the European Parliament mandate that has just started are in their first term. Some say that this should mean there will be a strong current of opinion in favour of new ways of doing things and of considering issues. What in the past would raise hackles might now be forgotten as other topics of controversy will be discovered.

I am not convinced it will be like so. For it could also happen that newcomers will be too prepared to allow themselves to be guided in their approaches by those who have served longer in the Parliament. As of now, I have already seen it happen twice.

Is this good?... bad?

I still need to decide.

***

Greater transparency

The call for a greater transparency in public sector decisions was and still is justified. The organs of the state certainly cannot take “all” decisions in closed chambers but have to be subject to accountability. This is ensured when the public is fully informed about decisions being made and projects being implemented.

Not only is it a democratic requirement but as a method, it also helps make decisions taken by public authorities more effective. True, transparency can serve to enable lobbies which rise up against some policy or other to mobilise better, as they try to block it. On the other hand, the criticism that they generate could serve too to bring about a better evaluation of what is being implemented, and therefore improve implementation – even if this is done only to avoid being criticised.

A problem in Malta is that though there has been a relative increase in the practice of transparency over the years, it is still not being done consistently or in a uniform manner across the different policy sectors. In some it is scrupulously observed, in others it is simply ignored.