The time has long come for the question to be raised as to whether in public administration, too many organisations are involved in ongoing work: instead of really implementing government work programmes faster, they are actually rendering them more confusing and complicated.

With the growing post-Indpeendence pressures for economic and social development, as happened in other countries which were undergoing the same experiences, it was discovered that the system that ran government affairs needed to grow, expand and acquire new structures. Otherwise it would not be able to cope with what had to be done. So corporations, boards, agencies, authorities, consultative commitees, commissariats and I do not know what else, began to be established.

Now, Independence was achieved almost sixty years ago. Not all the organizations that were hatched since then still make sense, even if once upon a time they did. To be honest, quite a few have served mostly to provide paid jobs for “the friends”.

All administrations pass through periods during which they need to diversify and “differentiate”, and periods when it is necessary to centralise. In today’s situation, a step or two towards a greater centralisation would make sense.

*** 

IN THE WAKE OF THE SCANDAL

There were comments in the international media about the scandal that shook the European Parliament this month which impressed me more than others. Among the, the following: The European Parliament is the weakest institution in European structures. Many consider it as hardly better than a talk shop. Meanwhile, if what is alleged about Qatar is correct, huge financial resources were still mobilised in order to “influence” the Parliament.

So how could it be that efforts are not being made to also “influence” a much stronger institution – the European Commission? And if such efforts have had success in the EP, would it not be realistic to suspect that they progressed too at the Commission?

It is a claim that cannot be brushed aside and which I would guess must be worrying European decision-makers beyond the EP itself.

***

SELF-CRITICISM

Western leaders advance many accusations and allegations regarding countries that are outside their fold. And sometimes they express amazement because “third” countries do not follow their stand and even seem to disagree with it.

In reality, among a not so small number of developing countries... as we have continued to label them for the last seventy years and more, mostly ex-colonies... there exists a scepticism regarding the intentions of Western leaders. They consider the latter to be hypocritical, and more so when (as they claim) different yardsticks are used according to when things happen and according to who is doing the evaluation. Action is taken only in the best economic and political interests of the West, which includes the most materially advanced and militarily powerful nations.

Such a viewpoint is not totally mistaken, as at times we are expected to believe. The dominant players of the West would do well to direct a good measure of self-criticism at their own endeavours in order to evaluate why and how what they say and do is not and cannot be understood “correctly”. 

***

All best wishes for a prosperous and happy New Year to the editor, all staff and readers of the Malta Independent.