Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1179886
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 OCTOBER 2019 INTERVIEW In an article last year, you argued that 'by retaining his two right-hand men' [Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri], Joseph Muscat 'cast a shadow over his tenure, one he could have avoided, sparing the country from unnecessary embarrassment and humiliation'. And yet, Muscat also increased his own (and his party's), popularity, as evidenced by the 2017 election result. How do you account for this paradox, whereby the same Joseph Muscat is judged completely differently by local and foreign observers? It is a paradox, certainly; and it is something I still fail to prop- erly understand. There is a huge discrepancy between the rheto- ric used by Joseph Muscat be- fore becoming prime minister in 2013, and afterwards. In my opinion, Muscat [as Opposition leader] came out with some of the most amazing rhetoric, and eloquent positions, we have ever had in Maltese politics. So I was not entirely sur- prised that, by 2013, the tide had turned towards the Labour Party by such a wide margin. The margin, perhaps, was a bit surprising; but there was a need for change: after all, the Nation- alists had been in power almost uninterruptedly for more than two decades. But if you look at what was promised before that election, and what we are seeing now: there is a huge gap. In terms of economic goals, the country has become more prosperous. That can't be denied or debated. There are, of course, nuances to that… because economic pros- perity also brings with it notions of discontent. Some people in- variably become more prosper- ous than others, leading others to complain, and so on. All the same, however, there can be no doubt that Muscat has definitely achieved economic results: on top of a string of elec- toral victories, of the kind that had never been achieved before. But that, in my opinion, doesn't make the shortcomings right. It doesn't 'right the wrongs', so to speak. We have had, to this day, a se- ries of incidents where elements and principles of good govern- ance have been breached. The question here is: how do we react to that? Have we become numb towards such develop- ments? Do they not concern us anymore? I'm not saying many people are not concerned; they are. But they do not constitute a majority. So this, perhaps, poses a few questions about what Mal- tese society has become. Have we become increasingly materialistic? In years after World War Two, for instance, sociologists started talking about 'post-materialism'. Hav- ing a house, a job, your daily bread and butter… all that was important. But with peace, those considerations became secondary. What became im- portant, with post-materialism, were people's aspirations; the environment; quality of life, etc. Because if the basic needs are satisfied, you will start looking at other things. Where does Malta fit into that? We are aware, for instance, that we have a finite piece of land… and yet, even though some peo- ple are quite disappointed by the way we are treating this land of ours, there seems to be a drive, among all us Maltese, to 'make a buck'. That seems to be the most important thing on the agenda: irrespective of all the breaches of good governance. Of which there have been quite a lot, too. In my opinion, history might judge the current administra- tion differently. Yes, we have created unprecedented wealth, and unprecedented prosperity… but quite a few things are being neglected, and they will definite- ly come back to haunt us. At the same time, however, most of these breaches consist of things we always used to accept in the past. In the 1990s, for instance, we had a Chief Justice who was appointed by his own brother… and no one batted an eyelid. Now, there are court challenges to block individual judicial appointments; even if all Malta's judges and magistrates have always been political appointees. Doesn't this feed into the perception that breaches are only to be condemned when they come from one political party, and not the other? I think it is perilous to look at it that way. I agree that his- tory repeats itself; and there is always a precedent. But if you run on a political platform to change things – if you promise that things would be done dif- ferently, and raise expectations of a fairer system – but then, not only do you do the same as your predecessors, but actually re- gress, and make things worse… to the extent that 80% of judicial appointments are now politi- cal… that's a very, very high per- centage… It has always been 100%, though. There is not a single judge or magistrate, appointed before 2016, who was not chosen directly by the government of the day. Why is it only an issue now? First of all, I think we need to qualify this: I think most people are professional, and can wear two hats. When you have a dep- uty Speaker presiding over the House of Parliament, it will al- ways be someone from one side or the other. But once in that role, you are expected to take off your hat as an MP of your party, and put on the hat of Speaker of the House. People can make that distinction. I fully believe that most peo- ple appointed to the [judicial] bench are perfectly capable of taking off the hat they used to wear, and become impartial magistrates or judges. I am sure of that. But because justice is not only expected to be done, but seen to be done… you will always have a perception issue. I'm not saying that people who have had political positions in the past should be disqualified from the role… because that would lead to a situation where people feel they are 'condemn- ing themselves to eternal dam- nation' by participating in pub- lic life. That should not be the case. I still think that politics is a service. But just as they should not be disqualified… they should not make up three-fourths of the appointments, either: which is now the case. The issue is not limited to just judicial appointments. There are also expectations of public decency which need to be met. It is never, in my opinion, ac- ceptable that a minister grants an assignment to his wife, on the public payroll – I'm referring to Mrs Sai Mizzi – even if she is probably the best qualified per- son for the job. I just don't think that should be done. I think it should naturally oc- cur to you that, because there is Economist and University lecturer GEORGE VITAL ZAMMIT sounds an ominous warning about the lack of good governance in Malta. Apart from inviting international opprobrium, the situation also gives rise to practices that will be very difficult to eradicate in future The State has been weakened, Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt