There is little to disagree with Prime Minister Robert Abela when he places trust at the centre of his message to the international community. At a time when misinformation is widespread, international tensions remain high, and wars continue to claim lives, the need to rebuild confidence between nations and peoples is undeniable.
But while it is relatively easy to stand on the international stage and speak about the importance of trust, the real test is what happens at home. Trust cannot be something that a Prime Minister advocates when addressing the United Nations while overlooking the circumstances that undermine it in his own country. If Abela believes that trust is fundamental to a better world, he should be at the forefront of efforts to restore it in Malta.
The Prime Minister used the word trust 30 times in his address to the United Nations, making it the central theme of his speech. "Where once people embraced trust, now people are gripped by suspicion. Suspicion of governments. Suspicion of institutions. Suspicion of businesses. Even, all too often, suspicion of each other."
These are sentiments that will resonate with many people. Yet they also raise a question that the Prime Minister ought to consider: does he recognise that the same suspicion he describes on the international stage has become a concern within Malta itself?
Trust in government cannot be built simply by asking people to have faith in those who govern them. It must be earned through decisions, conduct, and a consistent demonstration that the public interest comes before political convenience.
In Malta, there have been too many occasions when government actions have fuelled questions rather than reassured the public. For one thing, when appointments to public entities appear to be determined by political allegiance rather than competence, people are left wondering whether those institutions are being run in the interests of the country.
The same applies to the principle of justice. When people believe that accountability depends on who they are, whom they know, or how much influence they wield, trust in the system inevitably suffers. The perception that some people are held to account while others escape scrutiny is damaging in itself. A democratic country cannot expect citizens to place confidence in its institutions if they suspect that the rules are not applied equally.
Environmental policy provides another example of the distance that can emerge between political declarations and people's everyday experiences. A government may speak of a greener Malta, but when development continues to transform the landscape and open spaces become increasingly scarce, citizens are entitled to question whether the stated objective is being translated into reality.
The situation in this respect gets worse when the Planning Authority remains headed by someone - Johann Buttigieg - who does not entertain the confidence of a cross-section of stakeholders (except, of course, the Malta Developers Association) because of his actions past and present.
Political credibility is also damaged when public figures say one thing and do another, or when controversies are allowed to fade without satisfactory explanations. Accountability is not an optional extra in public life. It is one of the conditions on which trust depends. When citizens see politicians escaping consequences that would be expected of others, the resulting cynicism is not surprising.
The same questions arise when people move from one public authority to another, sometimes accompanied by higher remuneration. Such appointments may have legitimate explanations, but without transparency about the criteria and the reasons behind them, they feed the perception that public positions and resources are being distributed among a privileged circle. The familiar sentiment that everyone is helping themselves to a share of the spoils captures the public frustration that such practices can generate.
Law enforcement is another area in which consistency matters. If people notice that minor offences are pursued while allegations involving influential individuals receive less attention, trust in the police and the wider justice system will suffer.
In a democracy, questioning those in power is not a threat to trust. It is an essential safeguard against its abuse.
But a government that wants citizens to have confidence in it must recognise the difference between demanding trust and earning it. It must be prepared to explain its decisions, accept scrutiny, correct mistakes, and ensure that institutions serve the public rather than narrow political interests.
Abela's speech calls for precisely the sort of change that should begin with those who hold power. If restoring trust is a central mission, as he declared, then the Prime Minister must take responsibility for making it a practical objective of his administration.
That means leading by example, respecting institutional independence, demanding accountability from those around him and ensuring that competence and integrity take precedence over political loyalty.
When the Prime Minister himself refuses to apologise after the Standards Commissioner finds that he has breached ethics, he is hardly demonstrating trust in, or respect for, the institutions that are meant to uphold standards in public life
Ultimately, trust cannot be restored through rhetoric alone. It grows when words and actions coincide, when institutions demonstrate their independence, and when people see that the rules apply equally to everyone.
Abela has made his position clear on the international stage.
He now needs to demonstrate that he takes the same principles seriously in Malta.