Morally, the most difficult moments in political life do not come when you have to respond to the question – whom to back?
Such a question just requires a reply which (if it is going to be appropriate) must centre not on who you like or abhor, neither on who happens to be your best friend or not: but on a judgement, yours, about who has the best potential to carry out his/her responsibilities with vigour, integrity and ability.
In the end, a reply must clearly reflect a respondent’s deep feelings, which also implies that different people will have different replies to the question.
Much greater difficulties arise when one seeks a reply to another question: when faced with different, sometimes conflicting, versions of the reality, who is to be believed?
What will make you believe in one version and not another? Is it the loyalty and openness of whoever you would like to trust? The problem is so complicated and tough because not everybody attaches the same meaning and value to the words “loyalty” and “openness”.
***
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
I think this is close to the fourth time that I’m writing about the resolution on Malta and the rule of law approved last week by the European Parliament. I do so in order to again emphasize how inherently flawed is the process by which the Parliament arrives at judgements about events in EU member states.
The partisanship and manoeuvering that goes into decisions is so evident. What is also just as evident is the calculation that is being made all the time – excuse or ignore whatever your allies do; condemn what those you disagree with happen to be doing.
The levels of hypocrisy in the whole situation reached an exceptional high in Malta’s case. True, there are a number of matters which open us up to big time criticism. However it was astonishing to note how no effort was spared to uncritically drag into the EP resolution all allegations and puerile attacks that in past months have been levelled at the Malta government.
***
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Beyond today’s ongoing controversies, we need to discuss further how to better restrict conflicts of interest in Malta.
Even so, there cannot be easy solutions. Bigger countries than ours have failed to get the problem under control.
When a country is as small as ours then, difficulties multiply. They override considerations as to whether a person who has been placed in a given role has come too close to any special interests.
In such small societies as Malta’s, everybody knows everybody else, everybody is everybody else’s relative, everybody at some one time or another, has expected to receive a favour from somebody else. In this wide network of interests in which all sorts of claims get entangled, how is it possible to distinguish what is acceptable and what is not?
***
Happy Christmas to the staff and readers the Independent, as well as their families.