This pandemic has impacted me, my family, and everyone else in our world. After seeing how our country is reacting to warnings resulting in the consequences we now face, from greylisting, corruption allegations, abuse of office, mismanagement of the environment to unorthodox development permits, I keep asking myself whether we, the voters, are responsible for this conundrum and for the messes of past administrations. Can it be that as a nation, we have been electing politicians, not public servants? Could this be the real reason why our country appears to be doing poorly in this crisis as poorly it appeared to be doing in bygone years when compared to other countries?

I have been closely following the local political scene for practically my lifetime and the perception I keep on getting is that most politicians never admit a mistake and only say things that sound good, independent of honesty and truth. They speak a lot while saying nothing. They have no problem misleading people. A politician's allegiance often appears to be to the ones who provide the money. Perhaps difficult to state or admit but politicians act in their own best interest. They play on people's emotions and perceptions, independent of facts and reason. For me, the worst characteristic of such a politician is that he/she does not objectively consider all sides of an issue.

Now let me turn to the role of public servants for a moment. We all know that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries essentially need the support and assistance of public servants for the implementation of their policies. They cannot do without the topmost public servant in the fashion of a Permanent Secretary, down to the humble messenger. Of course, there will then be the part played by the Minister’s private Secretariat and Chief of Staff, not to mention a plethora of persons of trust to aid and advise the Ministry, but that will be another story on a different occasion.

An ideal, honest, qualified and seasoned public servant will admit a mistake despite the political consequences because that is the only way to correct a mistake. A public servant recognizes that something that sounds good, looks good, and makes people feel good is not automatically good. A public servant will speak the truth based on facts and not play on peoples' emotions. A public servant will objectively listen to all sides of an issue. He/she will then use reason and facts to determine what is best. A public servant will always act in the best interest of the public, whether it is popular or not. Finally, a public servant does not act for glory, power, or money. A public servant acts only to serve the community. This should be the meaning in the substance of the adjective ‘public’ in the concept of a public servant. Keeping aloof of political agendas is imperative.

But what is servant leadership, and what does it take to be a servant leader? I shall not go to extremes in quoting Christ’s words when he told his disciples that “if anyone wants to be the first, he must be the very last and the servant of all,” but there, in a nutshell, lies the answer and the dichotomy, the succinct summary of what, in general, possibly ails our government leadership. The majority of those we elect or are appointed into public office, are wont to reverse the equation. They put themselves first, and treat “all” others as last and servants to their own private agendas. Sadly, not without obsequious collaboration from the “served.” Malta first and foremost can easily turn into just empty words and meaningless rhetoric.

Where do we, the Maltese public, get off calling our public servants “officials?”  Is not public office public service? By referring to our public servants as “officials,” we subvert our own role as “boss” and become complicit in their failure to deliver genuine public service. How many of us have come across self-important public servants dealing with ordinary citizens as “supplicants” imploring special favours? It will tell you what pubic service is not about. Public servants should never be referred to as “officials.” They are called public servants and it is reflected in their work. As proof, even today, you need only walk into most government offices to see the difference in the quality of service rendered by these “public servants.” And, yes, credit should be given to the Principal Permanent Secretary for redefining the role of the civil service and transforming it to come into line with modern expectations.

Public servants are not handsomely compensated and definitely not the envy of the private sector—a matter, perhaps, to consider in preventing corruption in public office becoming the norm here, and excellence the exception. Moreover, they are more often than not pitted against the whims and tall orders ordered or imposed from high above at the ministerial level. I am reminded of the humorous British television programme of the 1980s, Yes Minister, about the disagreements between a government minister, Jim Hacker, and the high-ranking civil servant who works with him, Sir Humphrey Appleby with the latter continually using clever methods to make sure that the minister never makes any decision which he does not approve of.

Mind you, in spite of some truths I have argued above, I have also concluded that many good people with good intentions go into politics. The problem is that our political system corrupts them and they do not realize it. So do not be too hard on our elected politicians as we try (as we must) to remove corruption from our political system and replace these politicians with ‘public servants’. Politicians still have a lot to learn from their subservient ‘public servants’.

Dr Mark Said is an advocate