A political auditor is necessary

We inherited our system of parliamentary democracy from the British, when we were still a colony. The administration of domestic affairs was transferred in a piecemeal fashion to the Maltese even though way back in Roman times we had already had a modicum of self-government as a municipium. The British people themselves first experienced modern parliamentary democracy in 1832 when the Reform Bill was enacted by Parliament.

Before that time, though parliaments existed in a number of countries, they were not based on the modern concepts of democracy we cherish today. Kings used to exercise enormous power through the practice of appointing any person who was thought to implement their whims. The self-proclaimed kings' divine right authority was widely employed.

Actually we should be grateful to Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle, who used to ponder and theorise on different forms of state governance. In Plato's Republic we find references to equal rights and opportunities of office, appointment to which was by lot to ensure fairness. In Aristotle's Politics we discover the important consideration that the people are sovereign and that the majority should govern.

Though our forefathers always relished self-determination, even though fully aware of their dependence on a major power, Malta is still considered to be a relatively young sovereign state. In this short time, through our democratic ideals, we evolved more individual rights, determining our own future and making alliances according to political and economic circumstances.

There are checks and balances to ensure that abuses and corruption do not take place. In fact Transparency International gives us a high ranking. Different political parties ensure that no one takes advantage of their authority and power.

Despite all this, can we really conclude that democracy is well served? David McKay, in Politics and Power in the USA, states that "again it is necessary to distinguish between myth and reality when discussing democracy. A high incidence of elections and a widespread belief that the system is democratic does not mean to say that it actually is. Low-income groups, minorities and, until recently, women have had little say in who gets what, how and when. By their very nature, complex modern societies with vast government bureaucracies cannot be truly democratic in the classical, direct sense."

Safeguards

If the US, considered to be a bulwark of democracy, is believed to have shortcomings in its democratic ideal, just imagine other countries so much lower on the demo-cratic scale! It is not enough to periodically hold elections so that people's representatives are chosen, a majority of whom then take decisions after exhaustive debate.

Democracy is also gauged by complete administrative transparency, strict accountability, easy access to all information pertaining to public affairs, freedom of speech and beliefs, equal opportunities to all citizens, full respect for minority rights and other pertinent rights that are commonly accepted by all democratic countries.

To be fair, Maltese governments, fully aware that irregularities, injustices and discrimination may be committed by an administration, have enacted laws to safeguard individual and institutional rights. They have also created institutions to guard against corruption and abuse of power and to give further rights to organisations and individual persons who experience them. With Malta's entry in the European Union these rights have been buttressed further.

The serious democratic problem with which Malta is faced is not one between Government and individual persons. Personal and collective rights in that respect have a solid foundation. International agencies dealing with these matters always rank Malta among the best.

A more pertinent question with far-reaching consequences is that regarding the relationship between the two major political parties and the public at large. Both main parties are strong and well organised; they have their own administrative structures; they are equally equipped with all the means of modern communication and have party regional branches spread across the country. Thus, the two big parties can influence public opinion and, if they choose to do so, can give a biased and a distorted picture of the whole situation.

Hearing both parties, the public may end up perplexed and confused. It becomes extremely difficult for a person to form an educated assessment of a party's perform-ance both in government and outside it if one follows what the two parties are saying.

In economic matters, when a person's pocket may be favourably or adversely affected, it is not too difficult to come to a reasonable conclusion. But when problems refer to other matters in which the public is not directly involved it becomes increasingly difficult to believe either party.

The floating voters

A case in point is the post-Budget debate. The Opposition is accusing Government of not presenting the true facts; Government replied that all statistical data are official and, in addition, they have been verified by the EU institutions. Common sense dictates that Government is nearer the truth than the Opposition. But the Opposition is forcefully presenting its case to ensure that it is influencing public opinion to its way of thinking.

Normally, a person who is politically inclined towards the Labour Party is likely to believe the claims made by the Opposition. In the same way, a person who has Nationalist sympathies is prone to say that his government can never resort to such malpractices. But what happens to the consistently growing band of floating voters? So confusion reigns and, certainly, democracy is not well served.

There must be a way out of this dilemma. This small country must find a solution to ascertain that its democracy continues to flourish and its people will not end in muddled minds about its political and economic perceptions. It is important that, when choosing their government, their decisions are based on a correct and intelligent assessment of performance carried out over a number of years.

Many people may have different options for a solution. Based on the efficacy and efficiency of institutions purposely created to answer malpractices in public administration, a new institution should be set up to serve as a national guardian of all party manifestoes, political statements, promises and government measures which are taken. In case of disagreement, this institution, call it a political auditor, will serve as a reference point.

The greatest problem is finance. Government statements are audited. But there may be a possibility that services received and goods purchased by Government may be left out because payments were not made before the publication of financial statements. This political auditor should see to it that an incoming government should only be responsible for the documented bills held by him. In this way a situation of claims and counterclaims will never arise.

In our polarised political situation it may be difficult to find a person who is prepared to assume such a delicate responsibility. However, we must find an objective person who is prepared to serve his country so that the democratic ideals of transparency and accountability be preserved.

The people cannot be led to political confusion by the two strong and well organised parties. For democracy to flourish it must be protected and cultivated. One-off political mileage will not do to preserve our democratic ideals. All the parties should agree that they too need a reference point to ensure that people do not end in completely confusing ideas. Confusing messages affect economic performance.

Dr Borda is an economist specialising in the economic development of small states.