It is widely acknowledged that an unequal distribution of power in a country interferes with the effectiveness of policies and technical solutions, frequently leading to a failure in the delivery of intended outcomes. This might sound odd if that country has model laws and agencies to curb corruption, but power asymmetries are often to blame.
Malta, too, has laws and structures that offer the prospect of high transparency, good governance, and low corruption. However, the real outcomes are not even less-than-optimal; they are abysmal. In 2024, Malta ranked 65th in the world and 24th in the EU in Transparency International's Corruption Index. The governing party, which used to lambast the PN's Gonzi Government for saying that "corruption is just a perception" ̶ at a time when our placing in the index was 43rd ̶ is convinced there is no problem now.
The European Commission believes that Malta has long-standing issues related to recommendations by GRECO, the Venice Commission, and the European Semester system on conflicts of interest of its politically exposed persons, insufficient powers granted to the Commissioner for Standards of Public Life (an independent body providing advice and checking compliance of public officials with ethics rules in Malta), and loopholes in the integrity legislation and its implementing tools. One of its reports specifically states that Malta needs to strengthen further transparency in lobbying, verification of asset declarations and gifts, and whistleblower protection.
Another international institution ̶ the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ̶ said recently that Malta faces significant governance and corruption challenges, particularly relating to financial crime and money laundering. The IMF has recommended strengthening the anti-corruption framework and enhancing fiscal transparency.
Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) maintains that challenges remain in Malta, in terms of raising ethical awareness amongst officials, and "effectively enforcing these new integrity standards through consistent procedures for monitoring, investigating, and sanctioning wrongdoing."
Malta's National Risk Assessment for 2023 shows that out of 20 sectors reviewed, only one has a "medium-low" risk, while the rest are all medium or medium-high. One notes that since 2018, six high-risk sectors have been turned into medium or medium-high ones. That is good progress. But to claim that "we have passed with flying colours" is rather a hyperbole.
If some 83% of Maltese, so not only PN supporters, believe there is corruption in the country, then there is. Even if some trolls try to convince us that there's no problem because it has always been the case, people in general agree that we need better governance. We can only achieve this if the process through which state and non-state groups interact to design and implement policies is governed by a set of formal and informal rules that are shaped by power.
In a brief opinion like this, I cannot mention all the actions that can be taken. They have been listed numerous times and have been the subject of dozens of reviews, meetings, and seminars. I am more concerned about the long-term process required for deep structural changes to the country's institutions, its legal framework, and its culture.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the traditional ways of delivering political and bureaucratic accountability were intra-government controls or elections, which were thought to be the best mechanism for poor and marginalised people to make their voice heard. Public officials not beholden to any party were supposed to seek accountability from providers of government services on behalf of users. MPs were supposed to be their constituents' bulwark against an over-powering Executive.
PM Gonzi started the rot. Joseph Muscat's first government then broke the system entirely by co-opting many more MPs into the Executive and its agencies and making them subservient to the dominant government machinery. An army of non-independent functionaries did the rest. The Parliament's standing committees are mainly just another smokescreen for the Executive's unlimited power grab.
Lest I am accused of partisanship, I must say that the reach of governments in democracies elsewhere is no less far-reaching. Politicians and their acolytes just love lording it over, even though they spout slogans and propaganda about being people-centric. And the crowds applaud, ignorant of the fact that corruption is a hidden tax earned by the kleptocrats.
The Portellis, Stivalas, and Debonos of our world, and other magnates not so much in the public eye, have unimaginable power. They are entrepreneurs that the country needs, but we cannot afford to let them capture state authorities, politicians, and public servants. They are welcome to become millionaires, but society must strongly oppose their pervasive invasion of public structures and low accountability.
It is a myth that accountability is apolitical and technocratic. When there are resources at stake, accountability reforms challenge powerful interests that benefit from lack of transparency, low levels of institutional responsiveness, and poor protection of citizens' rights. Nowadays, I believe that the proper route to accountability lies in a bigger role for civil society, because increasing state accountability is about shifting the power balance between the state and citizens.
Because the traditional political and bureaucratic forms of accountability - also referred to as state-side, supply-side, or institutional - are so inadequate, we need new approaches to supplant or supplement traditional forms. These new approaches ̶ what one might call demand-side initiatives ̶ would be led by citizens and social actors who engage with the actors located either within the state or in private sector entities contracted by the state.
What I am talking about are variously termed 'social', 'citizen-led' or 'demand-side' accountability initiatives designed to improve transparency, access to information, and ways of holding to account the state and its agents. In the new jargon, they are referred to collectively as FAIs and are now mainstream in well-governed countries
FAIs create opportunities for citizens and states to interact between themselves constructively, thus contributing to important outcomes: better budget utilisation, improved service delivery; greater state responsiveness to citizens' needs; the creation of spaces for citizen engagement; and the empowerment of local voices.
In Malta, such interactions are sporadic and not structured into policy-making and implementation. It is not uncommon that NGOs and civil society organisations (CSO) are looked at as a nuisance; indeed, some are actively targeted as enemies. There is a tendency to include them, if at all, at the last minute, in an effort to reduce their impact. This explains why we are seeing increasing instances of tensions boiling over, now resulting in clamorous U-turns by authorities.
This explains why the question of how to foster governance processes that are more inclusive and lead to broadly-shared development outcomes is emerging as a leading issue. Previously, authorities had been practising what I might call "isomorphic mimicry". This involved adopting foreign forms of consultation for the sake of boasting that we have EU-standard mechanisms but then actively preventing them from being powerful actors in decisions.
That is not working anymore. Calling Repubblika and the CSN enemies of the State is sweet music to the ears of die-hards but does not cut it with reasonably minded people who think that some of their demands are in the country's interest. Similarly, environmental NGOs should be seen for what they are ̶ guardians of the environment. They lack the government's resources but are finding increasing support among the population.
An extensive and well-established body of research in the developed world shows that over the long term, states and societies with more open and inclusive institutions, both political and economic, tend to be wealthier and are better governed across a range of dimensions. Rather than adopting a siege mentality where civil society organisations are seen as a nuisance at best or a threat at worst, it would behove us to turn away from lip service to their concrete inclusion.