What is honesty or dishonesty in a politician? Is it possible for a politician to be honest at all? The question goes to the heart of democracy. When Maltese voters write off politicians as dishonest, civil society and pressure groups tend to thrive. Yet all Maltese-seasoned politicians know that ambiguity and compromise tend to prevail over universal truths.
Political dishonesty, it turns out, takes different forms.
One type is someone who is a dishonest man or woman to begin with. In the worst hypothesis, such a person will be a dishonest leader, ideologue, or diplomat. Another type is the well-meaning dilettante politician. Clumsy and amateurish, the dilettante's actions harm the interests he aims to advance. We have had more than one episode because of such actions in the tourism sector.
You then have those who put competence to bad use. They are skilled but ruthless, lack humility, and eschew reflection. They are political "troublemakers" who pursue their soaring ambitions by any means necessary, whatever the risks and regardless of the cost to others.
The political "fanatic" is also dishonest, for he is blinded by the conviction that he is absolutely right in all cases. The fanatic is inflexible and inertial, a steamroller ready to flatten everything in his way. By contrast, the political "wheeler-dealer" is no less dishonest, for he lacks the "vision thing." He is spineless, devoid of principle, and retreats in the face of responsibility.
Do you remember how, when pressure mounted on former prime minister Joseph Muscat, members of his party were considering their options? Should they topple him or keep him? Those who wanted him out feared that the public would not forgive the string of alleged corrupt and scandalous deals emanating from Castille while the rest of the country lived in surreal surroundings. Those who were hesitating did so because Muscat had been such an electoral success story before those scandals. The same pattern could be discerned once more when Robert Abela took over the reins of the Labour Movement.
Among a range of characteristics that politicians should have, being honest should come out on top. It should be followed by owning up when one makes mistakes. Getting things done and being inspiring should not come far behind.
It would be interesting to get to know what the Maltese think about the importance of honesty in politics. Imagine a prime minister having to choose between acting honestly and delivering the policies that most people want. Would the majority opt for honesty or delivery? Would they prefer a healthy democracy that requires that politicians always act within the rules or a healthy democracy that means getting things done even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules?
It is now a foregone conclusion that most people do not trust politicians, and they trust the politicians closest to power the least. They therefore welcome limits on what those in power can do. I suspect that many are dissatisfied with how democracy is working in Malta today because there is a lack of honesty and integrity in politics. More and more are in favour of greater powers for parliament and the courts vis-à-vis the executive.
Rightful Maltese expect their leaders and representatives to act with integrity, and they expect a system of checks and balances on executive power to be maintained. A leader and representative who violates these principles harms himself or herself and damages confidence in democracy. Former Labour MP Rosianne Cutajar might easily be a case in point.
It may sound like a paradox, but if all people were honest, politics would become redundant. This does not mean that we cannot identify honest politicians when we see them. They can be divided into two categories: The political moralist and the moral politician.
The political moralist is one who wants to hammer out morality in keeping with the requirements of politics, construed as a cynical game. It is a label that easily applies to all the types of dishonest politicians described above. The moral politician, on the other hand, is one who rejects cynical pragmatism but does not succumb to naive moralising. He or she regards politics as a tool for achieving the common good. They are not naive and know that patience, compromise, and a policy of small steps are often needed. Yet in pursuing partial goals, they will not lose sight of higher objectives.
An honest politician, in short, pursues a pragmatism built on principles and the courage to say unpleasant things, always with a constructive attitude. In this sense, just recall the courage that finance minister Clyde Caruana demonstrated when indirectly taking it out against the prime minister and minister Silvio Schembri. His was not irresponsible criticism, as he had the eagerness to expose and publicise a problem, matched by the willingness to propose feasible solutions.
This is why actual governance is so often the best test of political honesty. In democratic countries, if politicians who are critical of others while in opposition prove to be ineffective when in government, voters can, and often do, punish their dishonesty at the ballot box.
The toughest test for an honest politician comes when he or she must defend ideas that are unpopular but right. Not everyone passes such a test, particularly when elections are approaching. However, only dishonest politicians equate politics exclusively with popularity.
But political honesty is not the sole responsibility of politicians. Public opinion must play its part as well. Elected politicians are a reflection of the electorate. We must discern between those who want to make politics an honest living and leaders as opposed to misleaders.
Honesty and politics should no longer be uncomfortable bedfellows.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer