The courage to change

Good governance is central to the proper nurturing of this 50-year-old Republic. Good governance is founded on transparency and accountability. Secrecy and the withholding of information from the public domain, in contrast, generate bad governance.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance. This inevitably leads to the shielding of unethical behaviour, as well as the propagation of a culture of greed and corruption.

Transparency and accountability are inseparable twins. Accountability is, in fact, non-existent or severely diluted in the absence of transparency.

Good governance is much more than a concept. It is the essential foundation for any democratic Republic.  In the absence of good governance, greed flourishes, and national institutions are slowly transformed into personal fiefdoms. Corruption and rampant clientelism are the inevitable results of a lack of good governance.

In her inaugural speech on Thursday, President of the Republic Myriam Spiteri Debono spoke of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne’s assassination was described by Her Excellency as a wound that, as a nation, we must heal the soonest.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was actively involved in journalism, investigating corruption. Notwithstanding the continuous vitriol she faced, Daphne identified many a scandal associated with the governance model championed by the Labour Party in government.

This, in reality, is the wound to be healed. We need to finalise that begun by Daphne by ensuring, as a nation, that the corrupt face the music the soonest. Then the festering wounds of corruption, made worse as a result of a culture of impunity, will start the healing process. The rule of law must prevail without any exception.

The assassination of Daphne is also a heavy blow against good governance.  The public inquiry into the circumstances that led to Daphne’s assassination concluded with identifying the Maltese state as being ultimately responsible for all that happened.

A culture of greed has been reinforced with a culture of impunity.

The change necessary to heal this wound requires considerable courage and goodwill. I am not at present convinced that the political leadership currently in government is acting in good faith. It is a leadership under siege, continuously defending those who have driven this country to the dogs.

Land use planning and our environment are regulated by greed. Agricultural land is slowly disappearing as a result of the planning policies of the PN in government way back in 2006 through the so-called rationalisation exercise. The Labour Party opposed these plans when in Opposition but it is currently in the process of milking them dry to ensure that the greedy are fully satisfied.  Some have already licked their lips! Others are awaiting their turn.

It takes courage to act against greed, when both Parliamentary parties are fully committed to entrenching it as a way of life. They ensure the quality of life of the greedy, but in the process are ruining that of all the rest of us: both the present as well as the future generations.

The current set-up of our Parliament is part of the problem. It is no wonder, that, in this scenario, we are lumped with an electoral system that ensures that the voice of change is silenced by making it as difficult as possible for it to be heard.

Change is hindered as the national institutions are rigged against those who dare to speak up for the representation of a variety of minority views in the country.

As a result of this lack of political goodwill, ADPD-The Green Party is currently in Court contesting the discriminatory nature of this rigged electoral system. It is a constitutional court case that is hopefully approaching its conclusion.

At ADPD-The Green Party, we have long been speaking about the urgent need for electoral reform, focused on the need to ensure that every vote is valued. Until such time, no change can ensure that everybody is on board. One person, one vote, one value.

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 2024

The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

The auditor general: enforcing accountability and ensuring good governance

The office of the Auditor General is a fundamental institution of our Republic. The office is attached to Parliament to which it reports on a regular basis.

Together with my colleagues, last week I had a meeting with the Auditor General and his team in order to discuss ADPD’s request for his office to examine the issues arising from the failure of  Enemalta’s distribution network during the July heatwave.

Has Enemalta managed its resources adequately over the years? Is proper planning in operation at the Corporation in order to ensure that the impacts of climate change are contained? The multiple failures of Enemalta’s distribution network indicate a negative response to these queries. Hence the need for an investigation to identify the method of operation of Enemalta over the years, spotlighting the mismanagement and lack of planning which has led to the current state of play. Those responsible must be held to account.

Our request for an investigation of Enemalta operations brings to four the number of pending ADPD requests for investigations on the Auditor General’s desk.

Earlier this year, in April, ADPD had requested an investigation of the Institute of Tourism Studies (ITS) relative to a contract of service entered into between the said ITS and the Honourable Rosianne Cutajar. She was then a Labour Member of Parliament, but is now an independent MP after being squeezed out of the Labour Parliamentary Group.

We had then requested that the Auditor General examine how the ITS could ever receive adequate service as detailed in its contract of service with the Hon Cutajar when the said Cutajar has no competence in such matters. Specifically, ADPD had drawn the attention of the Auditor General and queried as to how a qualified Italian secondary school teacher could advice on the management of the ITS including its financial management, an area in which it is public knowledge that Cutajar has no competence whatsoever.

Another request for an investigation submitted in January 2022 by ADPD concerns the golden handshakes received (mostly) by members of Cabinet whenever heads roll or Cabinets change. The criteria for the utilisation of public funds in such cases have to be clear and should not to be tailor-made and adjusted every so often by those directly concerned or earmarked to benefit.

Of particular concern is the lack of transparency as well as a lack of adequate oversight in this important area of expenditure. So far little feedback has been forthcoming. With rumours of another imminent Cabinet reshuffle intensifying, the importance of an early conclusion of this investigation is considerable.

A third investigation requested by ADPD concerns the Department of Revenue and its practice of offsetting taxes due with pending payments. As far as is known, this is being done without clear rules and robust oversight. Way back in May 2021 ADPD had requested the Auditor General to examine this practice in depth. Any deals on the offsetting of taxes due must stand up to public scrutiny. It must also be subject to robust oversight procedures.

If this is not done, we could have a serious problem on our hands. In a press statement issued on 19 May 2021 I had stated that “Any suspicions that tax reductions are a ‘thank you’ for any donations to the party in government must be swiftly dispelled.”

If properly done offsetting taxes due with pending payments may be a valid tool for the proper management of public funds. There is however a real danger that without proper oversight this practice could camouflage suspicious deals which at the end of the day further fund illegal political party financing.

The office of the Auditor General has a central role in ensuring that the public sector is transparently governed and accountable for all its actions and operations. It is likewise our duty at ADPD to draw its attention to investigate areas which in our opinion require careful scrutiny. We do this in the belief that the office of the Auditor General is a fundamental institution, essential for the good governance of our Republic.

The proper functioning of the republic’s institutions is the only effective guarantee for good governance and accountability.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 13 August 2023

L-Awtorità tax-Xandir: għalfejn qegħda hemm?

Xi ġimgħat ilu iddeċidejna bħala partit li nħarsu sewwa lejn il-media politika (ONE u NET) u l-fatt li dawn kienu qed jinjorawna. Għalihom qiesna ma neżistux. Hekk jixtiequ fil-fatt, għax jidhrilhom li l-eżistenza tagħna hi xkiel għalihom. Jidhrilhom li ntellfuhom.

Meta ilmentajna mal-Edituri tal-ONE u tan-NET dwar il-fatt li ma jirrappurtawniex, it-tnejn li huma, għall-ewwel weġbuna bl-istess mod: dak li jxandru hu fi-diskrezzjoni editorjali tagħhom.

Sussegwentement, imma, in-NET bidel id-diska. L-ewwel beda jxandar xi affarijiet żgħar, imbagħad beda jxandar ftit iktar. Li ġara kien li ċempilli s-Segretarju Ġenerali tal-PN Michael Piccinino. Niftakar kont Brussels u ċempilli biex infurmani li qalulu bl-ilmenti ta’ ADPD u li hu kien ta’ struzzjonijiet biex dawn ikunu indirizzati. Kien pass tajjeb il-quddiem.

Kien hemm kambjament fuq in-NET. Beda jkun hemm rappurtaġġ avolja mhux ta’ xi kwalità. Kif mistenni joqgħodu attenti biex filwaqt li jirrappurtaw, ħafna drabi fuq fuq, iħallu barra fejn jinqaras il-PN. Dik kont nistenniha, avolja, jekk irridu xandir sura din trid tinqata’ ukoll.

Fil-kaz tal-ONE imma bqajna l-istess. Baqgħu għaddejjin b’ċensura politika totali fl-interess tal-Partit Laburista u kontra l-obbligi li jirriżultaw mill-liċenzja li għandhom.

F’Marzu kellna deċiżjoni li kienet l-ewwel waħda tax-xorta tagħha fejn l-Awtorità tax-Xandir laqgħet ilment ta’ ADPD u ordnat lil ONE ixandru rapport qasir dwar dak li kienu iċċensuraw. Dan kien ġie imxandar, b’geddum sal-art! Is-suġġett dakinnhar kien dwar l-isptarijiet, dwar Vitals u Stewards Health Care!

Il-bieraħ kellna kaz ieħor, dwar il-fatt li xi politiċi qegħdin viċin wisq ta’uħud fin-negożju u li dan hu perikoluż għad-demokrazija. Il-bieraħ l-Awtorità tax-Xandir ħabbret li laqgħet l-ilment tagħna. Qaltilna li għandna raġun. Imma din id-darba ma tatx rimedju. Ma ħarget l-ebda ordni lil ONE biex ixandar fil-qosor dak li kien ġie ċċensurat.

Ngħiduha kif inhi: dan it-tip ta’ rimedju hu essenzjalment wieħed simboliku imma hu meħtieġ.

Imma ma jagħmilx sens li l-Awtorità tax-Xandir tgħidli li għandi raġun, imma fl-istess nifs tgħidli biex nieħu paċenzja.

Għax ngħiduha kif inhi: f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi għalfejn għandna awtorità?

Illum fl-Awtorità tax-Xandir

Illum wara nofsinnhar kont flimkien ma’ Ralph Cassar u Sandra Gauci fl-uffiċini tal-Awtorità tax-Xandir biex nippreżenta ilment kontra l-ONE li għal darba oħra naqsu li jirrappurtaw konferenza tal-aħbarijiet ta’ ADPD.

Kienet konferenza tal-aħbarijiet indirizzata minn Sandra u Ralph fejn tkellimna dwar il-periklu għad-demokrazija meta in-nies tal-politika jkun viċin wisq tad-dinja tan-negozju.

Tkellimna dwar ic-chats ta’ Rosianne Cutajar u Yorgen Fenech kif ukoll bosta affarijiet oħra. Imma l-ONE għal darba oħra iċċensurawna.

Ħadd minn ONE ma ġie l-Awtorità tax-Xandir biex jiddefendi ċ-ċensura li qed iwettqu repetutament kontra tagħna. Ma nafx għalfejn ma ġewx, forsi fl-aħħar irrealizzaw li ma jistgħux jagħtu spjegazzjoni kredibbli dwar il-mod partiġjan li bih qed jopera l-ONE.

Nistennew d-deċiżjoni għax minkejja li l-ONE għażlu li ma jiġux l-ilment instema’ xorta waħda!

Every vote counts

On Wednesday, on behalf of ADPD-The Green Party, together with party General Secretary Ralph Cassar I instituted constitutional proceedings relative to the election results just published.

The issue at stake is that the electoral system has, over the years been developed in the exclusive interest of the PLPN: milking more parliamentary seats for the PLPN and excluding the rest.

 In a healthy democracy, all votes have an equal value: every vote counts. Unfortunately, in Malta, electoral legislation, by design, that is with the clear intention of Parliament, is discriminatory in favour of the PLPN, the political parties which have exclusively controlled Parliament since the 1966 general elections.

A vote cast for ADPD-The Green Party is equal in value to those cast in favour of the PLPN. Existing electoral legislation is discriminatory due to its giving weight to votes cast for the two parliamentary parties and ignoring those cast for others.

This is the result of two specific measures: one dealing with proportionality and the other dealing with gender balance. Both measures are designed to benefit the PLPN and discriminate against us, the third party, and others. The discrimination we are facing is an integral part of electoral legislation by design. 

On Monday 28^th March 2022 it was announced that the electoral result was adjusted through the addition of two MPs from the list of candidates presented by the PN.  This addition is the result of a proportionality adjustment between the votes obtained at first count by the political parties making it to parliament and the parliamentary seats won.

When this adjustment was carried out the votes obtained at first count by ADPD-The Green Party amounting to 4747 were ignored. These votes amount to more than the national quota. This discrimination is a devaluation of the democratic process as it gives weight to votes cast in favour of  Partit Laburista and Partit Nazzjonalista but ignores completely the votes cast for ADPD.

In the coming days, the final stage of the electoral process will be implemented. After all the bye-elections associated with the general election are concluded the Electoral Commission will assign up to a maximum of twelve additional parliamentary seats to the two parliamentary parties in order to address gender balance in the parliamentary ranks.  This will add to the existing problems of parliamentary representation by further inflating the parliamentary seats of PLPN to the detriment of the rest. The proportionality principle, already very weak will be further eroded.

The Constitutional proceedings deal with all this. The Courts are being requested to find that there has been a breach of several human rights protected not only in terms of Malta’s Constitution but also in terms of the European Convention of Human Rights. We also point out that all this is in breach of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights relative to free and fair elections.

We expect that the Courts identify suitable remedies to address the discrimination which has already taken place when the Partit Nazzjonalista was awarded additional parliamentary seats and the votes obtained by ADPD were ignored. We also seek the Courts’ protection from further discrimination which will occur in the coming days when the provisions of the gender balance corrective mechanism are applied.

Malta’s electoral system is not serving the country well: it has been manipulated repeatedly by the PLPN to serve their own interests. To this end they have also hijacked the Constitutional institutions. It is not only PLPN votes which are important: everyone’s vote is important and requires the utmost respect.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 April 2022

The last straw

The situation is now unbearable. The discriminatory gender mechanism introduced in the Constitution by consent of the PNPL duopoly is definitely the last straw. The PNPL duopoly have now been at it for quite some time: they are undermining our very democracy.

Some years back they introduced the proportionality adjustment mechanism in the Constitution. They fine-tuned it over the years. Yet it is only applicable when just two political parties make it to parliament. The moment that a third party makes it to parliament the Constitution ceases to guarantee proportionality except to the one party which obtains over fifty per cent of the votes in a general election. All the others are excluded from benefitting from the proportionality adjustment mechanism.

Act XXII of 2021, given the Presidential assent on the 20 April 2021, introduces another adjustment mechanism to general election results. It is a gender adjustment mechanism and is likewise applicable when candidates of two political parties make it to Parliament.

Twelve additional members of Parliament will be added from the under-represented sex. These will “be apportioned equally between the absolute majority party or the relative majority party and the minority party”. There is no provision for the applicability of the gender adjustment mechanism when parliament is made up of more than two political parties.

Way back in March 2019 government had set up a “Technical Committee for the Strengthening of Democracy” which was entrusted to draw up proposals on the need to achieve gender balance in parliament. In July of the same year, after an exercise in public consultation, this Technical Committee published its findings and final proposals.

The Technical Committee in its report acknowledges the receipt of a position paper submitted by the Maltese Green Party which emphasised the need of a “broader electoral reform” than the one under consideration. Unfortunately, the Technical Committee failed to engage and discuss the only alternative submitted to its entrenched position. An alternative which could possibly have delivered a solution without creating additional discrimination was ignored completely.

The Technical Committee’s proposal, which was eventually adopted by parliament, adds another layer of discrimination to our electoral laws. To date proportionality is only constitutionally guaranteed to political parties in a two-party parliament.  The second layer of discrimination will likewise guarantee a gender balance only when two political parties are present in parliament.

Encouraging gender balance is an important objective which I and all my colleagues share. It cannot however be the cause of creating further discrimination in our electoral legislation. This was a unique opportunity which could have been utilised by the so-called “Technical Committee for the Strengthening of Democracy” to eradicate the existent electoral discrimination rather than further strengthen it. As a result, the Technical Committee ended up strengthening the existent parliamentary duopoly.

It is unacceptable that the electoral law treats us differently from the large parties. Equality before the law is supposed to be a basic democratic principle underpinning all legislation.

The electoral system has been treating us unfairly for too long a time. Adding further to this unfairness is definitely the last straw. It is now time to address this unfairness head-on and possibly settle matters once and for all.

With this in mind we are planning to challenge constitutionally the two adjustment electoral mechanisms as both of them are designed to function as discriminatory tools.

It is however possible to have both proportionality and gender balance in our parliament without making use of discriminatory action.

Unfortunately, the PLPN duopoly have not been able to deliver fairness in our electoral system. The Courts are our only remaining hope to address and remove discrimination from electoral legislation.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 25 April 2021

The fragility of democracy

The events on Capitol Hill in Washington last Wednesday clearly show the fragility of democracy. We should never take it for granted.

The storming of Capitol Hill by Trump’s mob has damaged American democracy, which damage will be felt for many years to come. Damage which will take considerable time to heal.

Instigating and making use of violence for political ends, to instill fear and condition political opponents is nothing new. It has been used in countries and by politicians of dubious democratic credentials since time immemorial. On these islands we have had more than our fair share of this throughout the years.

In my younger days I used to live in Valletta, one block away from Parliament. We were used to having “spontaneous demonstrations” whenever Parliament had some hot item on its agenda, or whenever the political climate was tense, which was quite often. An orgy of violence many a time was the anticipated conclusion of such “spontaneous demonstrations” as the business community can confirm.  This is what incited crowds do: they transform themselves into deadly weapons used unscrupulously by those who pull the strings to silence or try to condition their political opponents.

Whenever the mob was let loose it left a trail of damage, not just physical damage, but more importantly reputational damage which takes quite a time to heal and repair.

Some of you may remember when a bull was let loose in the streets of Paola in September 1976 as part of the then election victory celebrations. After being force-fed a whole bottle of whisky it ended being directed towards the local PN club where it destroyed everything in its path.

The setting on fire of The Times in Valletta and the subsequent orgy of violence of the 15 October 1979 is another instance when instigation directed at highly charged political-mobs ends destroying everything in sight. The reputational damage is the most serious in such circumstances.

The objective, in such instances is always the retention, buttressing and consolidation of raw political power. Fortunately, this is history now, but it still lingers on in the collective memory, the cause of occasional collective nightmares.

The international media has rightly reacted sharply to the developments down Pennsylvania Avenue. In a couple of hours, in addition to the loss of four lives, injury to at least 14 police officers and damage to property, the Trump mob has inflicted lasting damage to American democracy.

Do not just blame Donald Trump for the chaos at Capitol Hill on Wednesday. His enablers have a sizeable share of the blame. The agitators were not just those in the streets in hoodies and army fatigues. They were also in suits, products of Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Princeton Universities sitting in front of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, participating in the joint session of the US Congress.

Both Trump as well as his enablers have blood on their hands.

The rule of law and the respect of democratic institutions are not just for export! The United States of America needs to practice what it preaches in order to start restoring its credibility.

As a result of the election of Joe Biden, described as “sleepy Joe” by Donald Trump throughout the electoral campaign, the US could slowly start the difficult uphill path to reconciliation. Having the support of influential minorities will undoubtedly be an asset in achieving this objective. The successful mobilisation by the Biden campaign of the black vote throughout the United States was pivotal in achieving its electoral success, the latest being the election for the first time in the last thirty years of two Georgian Democratic Senators. One must now look ahead towards the future to reconstruct the social and democratic infrastructure dismantled in the recent past.

Democracy is very fragile. It is easily damaged and takes quite a time to heal. We should never take democracy for granted. It is continuously under threat and should be defended assiduously every day.

Published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 10 January 2021

Il-governanza tajba tinbena fuq it-transparenza

It-transparenza hi l-pedament essenzjali għal governanza tajba. B’kuntrast ma dan, il-governanza ħażina, ġeneralment, tkun akkumpanjata mis-segretezza u dan billi jinżamm jew ikun ostakolat l-aċċess għal informazzjoni ta’ kull xorta, liema informazzjoni għandha tkun pubblika.

Il-ħmieġ assoċjat mal-Panama Papers sirna nafu bih fil-mument li nkixfet l-informazzjoni dwar dawk li fittxew l-irkejjen tad-dinja fejn hi inkoraġġita s-segretezza: irkejjen fejn jinħbew il-flus ġejjin mill-korruzzjoni u mill-evażjoni tat-taxxi. Bl-istess mod l-iskandlu tal-Vitals dwar l-isptarijiet kif ukoll it-taħwid kollu assoċjat mal-power station ma kienux iseħħu kieku l-Partit Laburista fil-gvern għażel it-trasparenza flok is-segretezza bħala għodda essenzjali għat-tmexxija. Segretezza li kultant twaħħxek.

Il-kontabilità li tant niftaħru biha, wara kollox, hi dwar ir-responsabbiltà. Tfisser l-għarfien tar-responsabbiltà għal dak li nagħmlu. Dan ma jistax iseħħ jekk ma ssaltanx it-trasparenza, dejjem, u mhux biss meta jaqbel.

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra, l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ ippubblikat dokument bil-ħsibijiet tagħha dwar il-ħtieġa li tkun inkoraġġita u msaħħa l-governanza tajba. Kien f’loku li l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ emfasizzat li l-governanza tajba hi msejsa fuq it-trasparenza, l-kontabilità u s-saltna tad-dritt.

Spiss jingħad li l-informazzjoni hi poter. It-transparenza hi dwar dan il-fatt: li jkun assigurat li l-poter jinfirex. Għax hu biss meta jkollna għarfien ta’ dak li qed jiġri li nkunu nistgħu neżerċitaw id-dritt bażiku tagħna bħala ċittadini li neżiġu illi kull min jiddeċiedi, u allura jeżerċita l-poter, jagħti kont ta’ egħmilu, dejjem.

Il-politiċi mhumiex l-uniċi li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet. Dawn jinkludu liċ-ċivil u lil dawk li jmexxu l-awtoritajiet u l-istituzzjonijiet imwaqqfa biex jiffaċilitaw l-amministrazzjoni tal-istat fit-twettieq tal-funzjonijiet u d-dmirijiet tiegħu.

It-trasparenza teħtieġ li tinfirex anke fid-dinja tal-kummerċ. Spiss nisimgħu lil min jemfasizza li l-politika m’għandiex tindaħal fis-settur privat, fid-dinja tan-negozju. Għal uħud għadu mhuwiex ovvju li anke s-settur privat, u in-partikolari id-dinja tan-negozju, għandu joqgħod lura milli “jindaħal” fil-politika. Fost affarijiet oħra dan ifisser il-ħtieġa li jkun regolat il-lobbying. Dan ma jsirx billi il-lobbying ikun ipprojibit imma billi kull attività ta’ lobbying tkun transparenti. Għax jekk il-lobbying isir sewwa jista’ ikollu impatt posittiv fuq it-tfassil tad-deċiżjonijiet. Hi is-segretezza li tagħti fama ħażina lill-lobbying, segretezza intenzjonata biex ixxaqleb id-deċiżjonijiet lejn interessi kummerċjali u fl-istess ħin biex tostor it-taħwid.

Huwa f’dan id-dawl li l-inizjattiva tal- Ministru l-ġdid għall-Ambjent Aaron Farrugia li jżomm lista tal-laqgħat kollha tiegħu ma’ dawk li jfittxu li jiltaqgħu miegħu, inkluż mal-utenti, u li jippubblika din l-informazzjoni fil-forma ta’ reġistru ta’ trasparenza hi pass kbir ‘il quddiem. Din l-inizjattiva hi f’waqtha u hi ta’ eżempju lill-politiċi oħrajn biex huma ukoll jipprattikaw it-transparenza. Dan imma għandu jkun biss l-ewwel pass li jeħtieġ li jkun segwit bil-pubblikazzjoni ta’ proposti u dokumenti li l-Ministru jirċievi waqt dawn il-laqgħat, kif ukoll il-minuti tal-laqgħat li jkunu saru.

Hu magħruf li l-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika qed iħejji biex jippubblika abbozz ta’ proposti dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying biex eventwalment tkun tista’ issir konsultazzjoni pubblika dwarhom. Nittama li dan iwassal għal sitwazzjoni fejn f’dan il-qasam Aaron Farrugia ma jibqax l-eċċezzjoni. Il-bqija tal-membri tal-Kabinett m’għandhomx jibqagħlhom għażla. Għandhom ikunu kostretti li huma wkoll jaġixxu biex it-transparenza fil-ħidma politika tkun ir-regola u mhux l-eċċezzjoni.

Għax huwa biss meta it-transparenza jkollha egħruq fondi u b’saħħithom li nistgħu nibdew intejbu d-demokrazija tagħna billi neliminaw id-difetti li tħallew jakkumulaw tul is-snin.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 26 ta’ Jannar 2020

Good governance is founded on transparency

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain.

The Panama Papers saga saw the light of day when information on those seeking secretive jurisdictions was made public. These locations are sought to hide  the fruits of corruption or tax evasion from public scrutiny. Similarly, the Vitals hospital scandal, as well as the power station scandal, with all their ramifications, would undoubtedly not have occurred if the Labour Party in government had embraced transparency instead of entrenching secrecy as its basic operational rule.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance, inevitably leading to unethical behaviour and corruption.

Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter; devoid of any meaning. A lack of transparency transforms our democracy into a defective process, as basic and essential information required to form an opinion on what’s going on is missing. After all, accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency reigns supreme.

Last week, the Chamber of Commerce published its views on the need to reinforce good governance. Pertinently it emphasised that good governance is founded on transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

It is said that knowledge (and information) is power. This is what transparency is all about: ensuring that power is shared by all as it is only when we are aware as to what is going on that we can exercise our basic right as citizens: holding decision-takers to account. Being in possession of information gives each and every one of us the power to act and exercise our civic rights.

Holders of political office are not the only decision-takers. Decision-takers include the civil service as well as those running authorities and institutions established to facilitate the administration of the state in carrying out its functions and duties.

Even business leaders should be transparent in their actions and decision-taking. Many a time we have heard the expression “we should take politics out of business”, signifying that politics should not interfere in the private sector.

To some it is less obvious that the reverse of that is just as important, meaning that we should also “take business out of politics”. Among other things, this signifies that we should regulate lobbying. This is not done by prohibiting lobbying but by focusing the spotlight of transparency on all lobbying activity. If lobbying is done properly, it could have a beneficial impact on policy making. It is secrecy that gives lobbying a bad reputation: a secrecy intended to derail decisions in a manner beneficial to the different lobby groups as well as to facilitate and shroud underhand deals.

In this respect the initiative of the newly appointed Environment Minister Aaron Farrugia to log all of his meetings with lobbyists and stakeholders and to publish a Transparency Register is a welcome step in laying solid foundations for the practice of transparency by holders of political office. It is, however, only a first step and must be eventually followed by the publication in real time of proposals received as well as the minutes of meetings held.

It is known that the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life will shortly be publishing proposals for the regulating of lobbying. Hopefully, this should lead to a situation where Aaron Farrugia would not be an exception. Others will be compelled to not only follow in his footsteps but to proceed much further in entrenching transparency in the working methods of holders of political office.

A deep-rooted commitment to transparency is the only way by which we can start repairing our defective democracy.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 26 January 2020