At any given time, on this small island, we have one major section of the populace convinced that our institutions perform as they should, whereas the remaining part is convinced of the contrary.
Of course, good governance has everything to do with the proper and smooth running of state institutions. While no single ‘one-size-fits-all’ model of governance can be held up as the gold standard, there should be a strong consensus around the role and significance of effective, accountable and inclusive institutions in promoting sustainable and equitable development. Yet, can such a consensus ever be forthcoming?
We expect our institutions to rightfully earn their place by making real differences for us citizens, our economy and society. This can only come about if there is full access to vital information and proactive transparency that can help build our trust in the government.
We expect high integrity standards to curb corruption and ensure the fair and efficient use of resources and a free, dynamic and diverse media to keep us informed and empower us to hold the government accountable for decisions and results.
To my mind, we have never ever reached such a desirable situation under any of the past administrations, much less under the present one.
Our institutions are only as good as the capacity of our state to uphold them. They should be embedded in our country’s social context, which affects the way they function, as well as their effect on our economic outcomes. Of course, not all institutions are created equal and certain institutions matter more than others.
I would refer to some as being the prime movers, namely institutions that have a particular power to change others. The case of budget institutions, including, among others, fiscal responsibility laws, illustrates this point.
Our court system and the auditor general may also be considered prime movers. Institutional strengthening is a long-term process and certainly not an easy task. In Malta, it has never been taken seriously and has hardly produced any desirable changes.
Popular trust in our social and political institutions is vital to the consolidation of our democracy. Yet, distrust is becoming the predicted legacy of this government. To my mind, scepticism rather than distrust currently predominates.
Granted, no government ever enjoys the absolute trust of its citizens. Arguably, none should.
Since the power of every government dwarfs that of any individual citizen, even the most benevolent government represents a threat to individual freedom and welfare.
Still, for the government to operate effectively, it must enjoy a minimum of public confidence. Such public trust is important because it serves as the creator of collective power, enabling the government to make decisions.
With resounding electoral victories as its formidable credentials, this Labour administration could, initially, boast of huge public confidence to legitimise whatever decisions it went about taking. With the passing of time, however, huge cracks started to show in that hard-earned public trust and confidence.
Popular trust in our social and political institutions is vital to the consolidation of our democracy- Mark Said
On more than one occasion, it was at loggerheads with the ombudsman, the commissioner for standards and other constituted bodies. Too often, it rode roughshod over, intentionally misinterpreted, or misapplied the recommendations or findings of the auditor general. It went about subtly trying to apply indirect pressure and interfere with how the police or the office of the attorney general should go about certain high-profile cases. Appointments based on meritocracy were given short shrift. And certain misgivings, even within such a constitutionally independent and separate organ of the state as the judiciary, started to raise eyebrows.
What was once a sure public trust soon started being replaced by a growing concern about a crisis in public trust that is contributing to increasing public discontent and protests by civil society. We are threatened by a trust deficit that threatens to undermine the smooth running of our institutions. This is a phenomenon that has always permeated past governments.
Perceptions of poor or corrupt government performance have practically always been the order of the day. Perhaps the stark difference between the past and today is the fact that, thanks to the growing independent media and civil society, such perceptions have gone public. Poor government performance, scandals and corruption also undermine people’s trust that public institutions are working for their and the country’s best interests.
Rates of institutional trust are indeed substantially lower where corruption is high while government performance is positively associated with political trust. The quality of public services matters for people’s engagement and trust in institutions, although the direction of causality is not straightforward as levels of trust in institutions might also impact perceptions of the quality of services received.
Moreover, people who do not trust institutions disengage from public mandates. Lack of trust, therefore, creates a vicious cycle that affects governance and the functioning of institutions, including their capability to address economic insecurity.
The bare truth is that, in Malta, we hardly ever had institutions that ran smoothly. But never, like today, did we ever face a crisis of citizen trust in governance. This crisis of citizen trust has always had serious consequences, as trust is the foundation upon which the legitimacy of public institutions is built.
Trust in competence can only be built and achieved if and when governments deliver services that respond to citizens’ needs. Moreover, trust in values can only come about when governments demonstrate integrity and openness and exercise power in the public interest.
Mark Said is a lawyer.