How not to chair the Broadcasting Authority

The Malta Broadcasting Authority is a strange animal indeed. First introduced in Malta - on the lines of a British model - in the 1962 Constitution as a direct result of the abuses in broadcasting committed by the1955-58 MLP administration, it has had quite a chequered history. It has even had a period when it lay dormant in a political limbo and unappointed - very unconstitutionally, of course.

The Constitution, of course, never said that the Broadcasting Authority had to consist of two members appointed by the leader of the opposition and two by the prime minister - so much so that in the beginning there were members from different walks of life, without any overt political allegiance, whatsoever. Indeed, even in the present set-up, the Authority members are not representing anyone and are, theoretically, not subject to any outside interference.

It was Prime Minister George Borg Olivier, who in appointing the first post-independence Broadcasting Authority advised the Governor-General to appoint two members chosen by him, two members chosen by the leader of the opposition and an independent chairman. No doubt, this advice was given after the obligatory consultation with the leader of the opposition. This formula - which is not in the statute books - has been applied rigorously by all the prime ministers ever since, except, of course, when the Authority was not appointed.

As with any other ad hoc arrangement, this set-up has its advantages and disadvantages. One effect of this arrangement is the tightrope walking situation in which the Authority chairman must necessarily find himself. Whatever the Constitution says, in practice this set-up leads to two members acting in the interest of the party in government and two members acting in the interest of the party in opposition. This does not mean, however, that the two 'sides' always vote against each other, with the chairman solely taking the decision that matters. Instances when this did not happen abound.

Even so, when a decision on a politically controversial issue has to be taken, the division 'on party lines' is normally the order of the day, and should, realistically, not surprise anyone. In this scenario, the role of the chairman assumes an extraordinary significance. Some would, no doubt, conclude that the chairman ends up handling a dish of very hot potatoes.

Traditionally, Broadcasting Authority chairmen have leant on the chief executive and other permanent staff of the Authority to obtain relevant background information - including 'case-history' and precedents - on the issues that were to be decided by the Authority.

Armed with this information, the typical Broadcasting Authority chairman would then proceed to hear what each member has to say on any issue being considered by the Authority.

In this situation, one can easily imagine that the chairman would be expected to see whether a decision reflecting the opinion of the members could be arrived at after hearing the opinion of each and every member.

Naturally where the differences of opinion are such that a vote would produce a two against two deadlock, the chairman would proceed with reacting to the stated position of the other members by giving his opinion and, for practical purposes, decide the issue. Common sense indicates that this is as it should be, even if the vote giving a 3-2 result is a mere formality.

Imagine now a different scenario. In this case, the chairman does some homework on an issue on the Broadcasting Authority's agenda, forms an opinion and puts it down in writing and hands it to the other four members before the discussion on the issue has even started.

In this manner, the chairman's pre-determined position (partito preso) puts the four members in a strange predicament such that a lively discussion on the issue becomes impossible. The chairman's written-down point of view stifles the possibility of a healthy discussion leading to a reasoned out decision in which all the members of the Authority would have participated.

This, in my opinion, is exactly how not to chair the Broadcasting Authority.