Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1179886
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 OCTOBER 2019 INTERVIEW a family connection, you need to be more prudent. But the opposite is happening: all sense of prudence, of propriety, has been thrown out of the window. Meanwhile, the National Au- dit Office, the Ombudsman, and more recently the Com- missioner For Standards in Public Life, are all constantly, constantly flagging governance issues… come on. Something is clearly wrong. For what it's worth, my own understanding of the situation is that, because government has a comfortable majority in Parliament, and because the electorate has given it a clear mandate… government feels omnipotent. And that has its dangers. To me, this is a complete mis- understanding of the rule of law: the idea that, because you have an overwhelming major- ity sanctioning your mandate… then that makes everything al- right. Sorry, but no, it doesn't… There are, however, reasons for the present government's unassailability. You mentioned one yourself: people wanted a change after two decades of Nationalist administrations. Could it be, then, that an overwhelming majority reconfirmed Muscat's mandate, simply because there isn't any real Opposition offering a truly different way of doing things? That – even if disillusioned – people still prefer to be badly governed by Labour, than governed equally badly by the Nationalist Party instead? Perhaps; but if you don't try to change things when you have such a strong mandate; when your nine-seat majority in Parliament is in no way im- perilled… if you don't try and change things, even with such a wide margin of comfort… then things will never change at all. My concern is precisely this: Muscat has strengthened the Labour Party; he has strength- ened his own persona, in his role as prime minister; but he has weakened the State. Dras- tically. The issue of public ap- pointments is, in fact, a prime symptom of this: when prec- edence is given to loyalty, more than competence… that is what you get. A drastically weakened State… That certainly seems to be the conclusion of the Council of Europe's Venice Commission, which has issued recommendations on how the Maltese State can be strengthened. One recommendation is to give more executive powers to the Presidency, which would effectively alter the country's entire Constitutional set-up. Isn't there a danger that, in order to address governance issues that we all agree exist, we may end up creating new political realities… and with them, new political problems? Personally, I don't think we should go down that route, just because the Venice Commis- sion recommends it. But I don't think we should ignore the rec- ommendations, either. The truth is that there is an international spotlight on Mal- ta, whether we like it or not. We have exposed ourselves to various critical reports – by the Council of Europe, the Euro- pean Parliament, by the foreign press, etc… and we have to be careful. Now: I myself have never subscribed to the view that the Nationalist Party is 'fanning the flames' behind all this crit- icism. I never agreed with that, because… well, you probably remember the situation we had in the 1980s: the 'Foreign Interference Act', and what it led to. It was embarrassing, quite frankly. But today – and this is something that many people discount – we are liv- ing in age when everything you say, everything you do, everything you tweet or post, automatically becomes 'inter- national'. So this perception that we can somehow encapsulate Malta, and cocoon ourselves from the rest of the world… this is not on. Again, however, all this criticism comes mainly from overseas. It is not reflected in any widespread local concern. And as your own 'Foreign Interference Act' reference illustrates… we also have a history of resentment at being 'told what to do' by foreigners. Would you agree, then, that this 'international spotlight' might backfire? That instead of addressing our governance issues, we will simply entrench ourselves in our political positions? It may not be a cause for con- cern today; but a time will come when the effects will start being felt. The real danger is not what the outside world thinks of us; it is the long-term effect the pre- sent situation will have. Because we have set in motion certain practices that will be very hard to eradicate in future. To give you an example: ad- mittedly, this happens – and has always happened – before every election; but the last time it happened [In June 2017] it got elevated to public attention, because the Gozo Chamber of Commerce actually complained about it. So many people were siphoned off from the private sector, to be given a govern- ment job on the eve of the elec- tion, that it caused a Labour cri- sis in Gozo. This gives an indication of how the landscape has changed: because previously, this kind of political patronage was under- pinned by the usual laws of de- mand and supply. Jobs may have been dished out unfairly, for po- litical reasons, in the past… but there was generally a need for those jobs to be filled. The way that need was addressed might have been very objectionable; but the need itself was real. This? This is totally different. There was no 'need'. What hap- pened was that we created po- sitions that didn't need to be created; we lifted people from private enterprise – where they were needed – and placed them where they were not needed; and without them even asking for it, either. Those people did not go knocking on govern- ment's door, asking for a job. They were called at home, and asked: 'Do you want a job with government?" So, apart from hurting the private sector (in this in- stance)… we are also creating a false sense of dependency, and entitlement, that will be very difficult to eradicate later on. What makes this so wrong, however, is that it throws the concept of 'meritocracy' out of the window. When you are given some- thing you don't deserve… it is wrong on two counts, not just one. You are taking something that shouldn't belong to you… and you are taking it from some- one else who might really have deserved it. That's two wrongs, not one. I could add a third: that the people who come later will also expect to be given something they don't deserve… Of course. It's a self-perpetu- ating system. At the next elec- tion, the people who were 'of- fered something' will expect to be offered more… and sooner or later they will hold politicians to ransom. This time, it's government of- fering people things they don't need, and didn't ask for… next time, it will be people knock- ing on government's door, and threatening not to vote un- less they're given what they want. Not just the ones who 'got something' in 2017… but also their wives, their husbands, their nephews, their nieces, etc. There is no end to the cycle. Now: did we really need to do this? I don't think so. And it worries me, a lot. I am worried about posterity, in this sense. Not to play a puritan card, or anything… but because we are creating, or strengthening, a sense of entitlement and de- pendency that will return to haunt us in future. So the question becomes: how do we break this cycle? I would say that we have to start by wanting to break it; by not con- doning and perpetuating it; and by at least trying to make the necessary changes today. weakened, drastically PHOTOGRAPHY JAMES BIANCHI