In the wake of the political turmoil that afflicted Joseph Muscat’s administration in late 2019 – though it had been coming for some time – one would have thought normality would return to the way politics is done in this country. But that does not seem to have happened and, therefore, there is perhaps the need for a ‘new’ normal.
Muscat and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ engineered a system of government in which crooks were able to invade – perhaps by being planted – every nook and cranny of the corridors of power including the supposedly independent institutions.
The situation became desperate, as Daphne Caruana Galizia had warned just minutes before she was eliminated. So desperate, in fact, that something had to give. When that happened, Muscat himself was among the first victims of the monster he had created.
He stepped down and many thought the lessons learnt would ensure that transparency and accountability, so essential for good governance to prevail, would return.
But such hopes soon dissipated – not even Muscat’s own letter of resignation was published.
The people were kept guessing as to what reasons the prime minister, who often projected himself as some modern-day emperor, had given for his precipitous fall from grace. His après moi, le deluge attitude remained even in his disgusting collapse.
Neither the new prime minister, who was promising change and pledging that past mistakes would not be repeated, nor the president felt that publishing that letter of resignation was in the public interest.
Indeed, the president has declared that the public interest served by non-disclosure of the letter’s contents outweighed the public interest in its disclosure. What could Muscat have written?
Seven months later, Muscat decided to upload the letter to his Facebook page. But what we read is so run-of-the-mill that it makes one wonder whether he had written some other resignation letter, at least on the basis of the president’s explanation of why he had decided against its publication.
The culture of secrecy persists. This can only facilitate the spinning of webs of corruption and delinquency by people occupying or who once occupied public office.
Another recent case of lack of transparency was the decision by the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life not to reveal who had paid for Muscat and his family’s luxury holiday in Dubai.
Those who expect to enjoy the people’s confidence must willingly open themselves wide to public scrutiny – no ifs or buts.
If they are not willing to do so, then a ‘new’ normal, in terms of transparency and accountability, must kick in. It must be laid down by law that anybody accountable to the public should be in duty bound to put in the public domain, as a matter of course, all documents and correspondence in their possession that pertain to government. The same would apply to any procedures or decisions taken.
If it is felt there are compelling reasons that demand non-disclosure, then it should be up to the courts to decide on the matter, and nobody else.
The courts would, no doubt, resort to case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which clearly demonstrates that it is possible to uphold the fundamental rights of the individual while preserving society’s right of access to information.
Public life is a service to the nation not to oneself. Those who might not be comfortable with society breathing down their necks on public affairs should stay at home.