We have heard a lot of nice words about "the new spring" in our public life. We have been promised that the Nationalist government has committed itself to do politics in a new way. Are the reforms aimed at changing our public broadcasting system (PBS) part of "the new spring" that has broken on us, now that we are a member state of the European Union?

Last week government announced significant changes at PBS, including the setting up of an official editorial board. This board will be responsible for the quality of the programmes aired as well as the content of current affairs programmes and news bulletins. The editorial board will be independent of the PBS board of directors to which it will present a yearly report. How is this editorial board going to be held accountable? How is it going to be appointed? How are we going to ensure that these changes do not destroy the public broadcasting ethos that PBS should have?

The changes announced by government substantially mean that PBS is being dismantled and will have to outsource more of its airtime. Minister Austin Gatt, responsible for PBS, said: "While it is not excluded that PBS may produce its own programmes, resources will be limited and therefore have to be employed where they are most needed." He explained that proposals for in-house and external production would be screened by the editorial board and then handed over to the board of directors for financial consideration. Government will be entering into a public service obligation contract (PSOC) with the PBS.

These in-house and external productions will range from legally required programmes, such as news, to local sport and other public obligations, such as national events, public notices and all other commercial programmes. Government's reforms, as they have been presented so far, reinforce the Nationalist Party's stranglehold on PBS and are unacceptable in an open and modern democratic society.

In announcing the reforms Minister Gatt stressed that PBS must be financially viable but that this should not come at the expense of the cultural and democratic functions of the company. As a sort of afterthought he added that PBS was also required to fulfil its constitutional obligations, "to which will now be added international obligations related to EU governmental activity."

Undoubtedly, one area, which sorely needs a new spring and a new way of doing politics, is public broadcasting. But all the indications are that government does not have any serious intentions of bringing about a new beginning for our public broadcasting system. This system is one of our painful problems in our political culture. Over the years it has not managed to build a tradition of being perceived and trusted as a national institution, as a common home where we all feel welcome. It is still a partisan institution, controlled by the party in government and used consistently to push forward the partisan agenda of the party in government.

No European spirit

Now that we have become a member state of the EU, government is showing no political will to be inspired by the European spirit to renew the role of our public broadcasting service. It is within the competence of each member state to run its own public broadcasting system and the EU has no authority to interfere with the running of such a system. But over the past few years several EU institutions and treaties have urged the national governments of member states to create the necessary framework within which public broadcasting systems can play a fundamental role in open, democratic and pluralist societies.

Seven years ago the Treaty of Amsterdam declared that the system of public broadcasting in the member states "is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve present media pluralism." In the beginning of 1999 the Council issued a resolution stressing the "cultural, social and democratic function" of public broadcasting "for the common good has a vital significance for ensuring democracy, pluralism, social cohesion, and cultural and linguistic diversity."

The European Parliament started the whole debate eight years ago when it passed a resolution defining the role of public broadcasting as crucial for informed citizenship, helping to create "civil society, a political community and a public sphere where democratic debate takes place." One of the main remits of public broadcasting services is "to provide unbiased and fully independent information, both in news coverage and in-depth factual programming capable of earning the audiences trust".

To enable it to carry out its major role, the European Parliament states that a public broadcasting system must be accountable to the public in the way it spends the taxpayers' money. The European Parliament also said that the editorial policies of public broadcasting services "should be clear and available for public scrutiny and debate". No word was uttered about this when government announced the PBS reforms a few days ago.

The European parliament urged all member states to take the necessary steps to make public broadcasting services independent from government by setting up independent management systems, protecting their structures from political and economic interference and guaranteeing editorial independence for their staff.

All indications are that the Nationalist government is going to ignore all these European values in the reforms planned for the running of our public broadcasting system. All indications are that more loyal party activists will be appointed to run it as a Nationalist Party structure to serve the party and not as a public broadcasting system embracing all the cultural and political diversity of our civil society and perceived by all of us as a central part of our common home.