In the modern governance of parliamentary democracies, regulatory agencies have been allocated a leading role. Once the idea that economic affairs should be run according to free trade principles became the dominant view, there came too a growing recognition that mechanisms needed to be introduced which would ensure that such principles were being implemented correctly and not abused.

Politicians could hardly be tasked with safeguarding this process for their intervention would amount to a contradiction in terms, since the state would end up involving itself in running economic activity. Nor could the private sector be allowed to take over since sooner or later, abuses would eventually multiply. Nor could the whole matter be left in the hands of the judiciary since this does not have executive powers; nor should it have. So in addition to these three levels in the governance scale, a fourth one came into being – that of independent agencies charged with making sure that the economic set-up as defined according the “laws” of the free market is being run correctly.

For a tiny economy like Malta’s, it appears to be extremely difficult to find persons of integrity, independence, competence and talent to run the regulatory function consistently and correctly. But also to be clear, some assert that the real problem here is that the political and commercial establishment does not want and will not allow this function to be operated as it should.

***

RULE OF LAW

Among European critics of Malta’s record on observance of the rule of law, some claim that accusations of abuse raised about prominent politicans take too long to reach the courts so that they can then be sidelined.

These critics rather surprise me for meanwhile, they seem to ignore completely well known cases in the bigger countries of the EU about which they must be well informed.

Like for example, the case of ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy  who during the 2007 presidential campaign had received millions of euros from Ghaddafi’s Libya, which constitutes a criminal act under French law. His case is still ongoing.

Or the case of Spain’s ex-Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy who when in government and previous to that, presided over a system by which in his political party, hidden monies were paid and distributed to his comrades as well as to himself. Nothing has been done about this in his regard.

***

HOW TO ABSTAIN AND FOR WHOM

Like others, I have followed the case of the magistrate who did not abstain in a case that came before her. A judge in the constitutional court ruled that she should have done so and removed her from the case, as her father-in-law happens to be the lawyer of ex-Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. Had she abstained, the judge stated, it would have appeared that justice was also going to be done.

Now I’m not well versed in legal give-and-take but I’m surely not alone to have made the following observation: By the same yardstick set for this magistrate to abstain and by which she was removed from the case, should not the judge who gave the ruling have also abstained from giving judgement on her situation? I (and others no doubt) remember him as an active militant and even election candidate for the Nationalist Party.