Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1443447
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 JANUARY 2022 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 'Not such a foregone conclusion, that Of the PN's 12 legislative proposals, one concerns what Alfred Sant had famous- ly described (after the 2003 election) as the 'power of incumbency'. Isn't this a bit ironic: given that the PN never did very much to curtail the same form of abuse, for the full 25 years it was in gov- ernment? That's a legitimate question. And I can answer it in two ways: either in the typical, pedantic, 'partisan-political' way… or in an- other way. If I were to answer in a purely partisan manner, I would tell you that: whenever a Nationalist government called an election, and parliament was dissolved; there were strict orders from Castile - actually, a direc- tive issued by OPM – that, for the duration of the campaign, all appointments, promo- tions, and transfers within the public ser- vice, had to immediately stop. This was a practice introduced by Eddie Fenech Adami in 1992; and maintained by Lawrence Gonzi after 2004. But during the last election – in May 2017 – the power of incumbency was taken to unprecedented levels. Because – credit to [MaltaToday journalist] James Debono, for pointing this out – the amount of permits issued by the Planning Authority, during those five weeks alone, was simply strat- ospheric. Much, much more than in the preceding months… Secondly: three-quarters of the AFM was given a promotion, during those five weeks… Excuse me for interrupting, but… it wasn't all that different in 2008: when – as James Debono's article also points out – the number of PA permits had likewise sky-rocketed, on the eve of an election... That brings me to the second, 'non-parti- san' way I should be replying. Did we make mistakes in the past? Yes, we probably did. But what we have all learnt from the [Daphne Caruana Galizia] public inquiry – for, whether we like it or not, I look at that inquiry as an X-ray of our institutions – is that the X-Ray shows us a patient who is in need of very urgent surgery. Because or national institutions have been either corroded, eroded, killed, compro- mised, or raped. Now: we should not – even as parliamen- tarians – get into the 'I-am-less-black-than- you' game… But that is precisely what you seem to be doing yourself, right now… No. What I'm saying – and what my party is saying – is: let us all agree, that the coun- try needs certain reforms that should be considered 'basic'. When an election is called, for example: there should be no such plethora of ap- pointments, or AFM promotions… or any decisions, of any kind, which would in any way bind a future Cabinet. (Because that is the way we have worded the bill itself). So it's not just jobs or promotions: it could be amnesties… or entering into international treaties… or bringing new legislation into force… whatever it is: government would have had ample time to do all that, before the electoral campaign. So the main raison d'etre, or 'leitmotif', of this bill is… let us ensure, as far as humanly possible, that the elections are conducted in a fair manner. Would you concede, then, that past Na- tionalist governments have not always been very 'fair' when it came to con- ducting elections? I beg to differ… fore the 2008 election, then-Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi (and his wife Kate) had organized private meetings with constituents – behind closed doors, in Villa Arrigo – to address their con- cerns. Isn't that exactly the same sort of 'vote-buying exercise', that you are now complaining about from Labour? No, sir! Those meetings did happen – I can confirm that myself – but it was a com- pletely different situation. It is, after all, the duty of all candidates, and members of par- liament, to meet their constituents, and lis- ten to them, during a campaign. But sorry: you can't compare that to the whole-sale buying of votes we saw in the last election… Can't you? Wasn't the whole point of those meetings to 'give people what they want'… just to win their votes, ahead of an election that the PN was widely predicted to lose? No, no, it wasn't like that at all. I was not involved, or present, in any of them myself: but we do know that the scope of those meetings was to hear out the 'pain' – or dis- appointment; anger; call what you will – of Nationalist voters, at the time. Certainly, it is not the same thing as dishing out a thou- sand AFM promotions, literally on the eve of an election. There not just a 'sea'… but an 'ocean' of difference, between those two things.. Because otherwise, by that argument: quite frankly, we may as well not hold any election campaigns at all. There would be no point in knocking on people's doors… if we cannot even listen to what they have to say… With all due respect, however: Law- rence Gonzi was wearing the hat of Prime Minister – not just 'any old candi- date' – when holding those closed-door meetings… I disagree. He was acting in his capacity as Nationalist Party leader… but let us at least admit that we need to move forward, now. Wouldn't you agree that we do need this law, to curtail the power of incumbency… and all the abuse of this power, that hap- pens before every election? Because that's what our proposals are ultimately about. And not just that: it's a whole package… If shadow justice minister JASON AZZOPARDI's predictions are correct: the Opposition's legislative reforms might go some distance towards healing Malta's many institutional wounds (as well as, possibly, mending the National Party's own electoral fortunes…)