We seem to have rewritten the basic rules of politics so that, now, the first rule of politics is never to resign. Why should a prime minister, minister, parliamentary secretary, MP or any senior official be forced to quit in scandals involving corruption, embezzlement, bad governance, conflicts of interest, double-crossing or the assassination of a corruption-revealing journalist? In reality, of course, resignations should occur at all levels of government whenever facts and circumstances warrant them.
In spite of repeated and justified public calls for such politicians and officials to quit, we have hardly had any significant political resignations. Yet, political resignations are essential for the health of democracy and political institutions. Protagonists risk their political careers when resigning but can hold governments to account and make the basic principles of public life real. Resignations are a fact of political life but are still relatively rare in Maltese politics. Lately, we have had a scarcity.
The few past resignations we had were inconsequential, arising, for example, from a minister’s ill health or another reason preventing them from continuing in a highly pressurised post. Some were passive, a face-saving way of avoiding being sacked that could have provided a glimpse of struggles at the heart of government.
Not only that but whenever there was any resignation letter it was kept as a confidential exchange between minister and prime minister and not, as it should be, a public document published for all to read. Resignation letters provide a rich source of information for journalists, scholars and the public, offering a route to better understand the demise of any government and to appreciate the strengths and limitations of the ministerial resignation as a political device.
Yet, we have not had any resignations arising from sincere differences over policy where the demands of individual consciousness outweigh the constitutional mandate of collective responsibility. Of course, any resignation of this type would lessen the effectiveness of the government, trigger fears about the electoral prospects of the ruling Labour Party and separately challenge the individuals’ personal integrity.
Considerations such as the fact that no political resignations have been forthcoming to date, promises that things would change, competing loyalties, fear of reprisal, love of the job, attachment to status and allegiance to ideological factions may partially explain why much of the government remains in post.
The increasingly presidential nature of our prime ministers makes them vulnerable if their approval rating drops. In addition, lower thresholds to instigate votes of confidence, anonymity in voting and the separation of processes of removal and replacement all weaken a leader’s position.
Resignation represents failure and the giving up of agency, power and influence.
Judged against criteria such as independence, fairness and accountability, public judgements as to the behaviour of individual politicians are often confounded by their perceptions of the political system or regime. Those holding public office also tend to be required to perform to higher ethical standards than members of the electorate.
It is time for our politicians to grasp the ethical importance of resignation in public life for the individuals involved and the health of the political institutions in which they serve. Resignation can help hold governments to account by drawing attention to unknown policy failures, inefficiencies, or malpractice, or, if known, by adding weight to their importance.
We have not had any resignations arising from sincere differences over policy- Mark Said
To be effective, however, the reasons for resignation must be made public and engender sufficient interest and support to initiate change. The silent resignation enables malpractice to continue without the irritation of internal criticism or external pressure for reform. The independence of the media in determining how to cover a resignation, too, could prove crucial to determining its impact.
For individuals, resignation can be a manifestation of personal integrity, with the person acting on belief and commitment, thereby attaining reflective equilibrium in which actions are consistent with both role and personal expectations.
In reaching the decision to resign, the resignees will need to negotiate the temptation to protect their public face by denying knowledge or responsibility. In doing so, they will be aware that resignation will carry real costs involving loss of status, income and, possibly, influence, while leaving them open to the accusation of betrayal.
Those personal costs may have increased in the current Maltese era of career politicians. However, for the institutional system, the ability of politicians to resign from ministerial positions gives credence to the belief that in office they will behave according to the principles of public life.
Prime Minister Robert Abela should remember that, although a government’s popularity may fall due to some crisis or problem in the government machine, it is not powerless in the face of such difficulties, even when they arrive unexpectedly.
Where failings occur, especially in a strong executive system like ours, accountability can be directed at specific ministries and ministers. The government as a whole can pin the blame on individual ministers and deflect criticism and subsequent falls in popularity by sanctioning or removing the minister concerned.
It is time that our politicians learn that no member ought to accept office in government without full consciousness that he ought to resign when the case so merits. With any privileged role comes responsibility – the responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not, to know what the job takes and to know when you no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice.
It’s that simple.
Mark Said is a lawyer.