Riding roughshod

Power corrupts, and corruption is based on power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When power goes to the head, then it is worse than any form of prohibited drug. Unfortunately, the euphoria of power is not in any schedule of abominable narcotics, nor does it show up in a urine test. The worst comes when there is an overdose.

In my life I have seen people who thought they were omnipotent. Seeing them out of their seat of power, they were as pitiable as a drug abuser who cannot find his true bearings. So when I hear anyone who thinks he is almighty, I simply wait for the end of his days of power. Then, possibly too late, he learns his lesson.

It may be a mistake to think that such individuals are only found in the political arena. There are many more who think that if they turn a wooden crate upside down, and stand on it, then they can touch the heavens with their fingertips, and all other mortals are insignificant and have to bow their heads in awe. When the giant stands in Parliament, then his stature is measured according to the yardstick suitable for politicians. If there is any type which I cannot really stomach is the arrogant politician who thinks he can rule the world. The truth is that power is on loan, and it has to be handled with care, as it has to be paid back, untarnished.

These past days I had a discussion with a colleague, who believes that in the exercise of certain functions there should be a margin of discretion, as honest people can take adequate decisions in the interests of justice, which should not be interpreted in the strict sense of the justice of the courts. Justice is a far higher concept. My position has always been that it is better to have transparent binding rules, which bind even those who make them. Others, in the name of wisdom of judgment and of knowing what is best, a mentality of infallibility is ingrained, which is dangerous.

Government land

One of the best pieces of legislation that was drafted in our small republic was that no minister can dispose of government land without Parliament's approval or by public tender. The House may lay down a policy of common occurrences where it may be advisable to make direct allocations within limits laid down in anticipation. If there is some exceptional circumstance, when it is not advisable or practicable to issue a public tender, then there should be a specific resolution passed by Parliament.

What is often forgotten is that any individual MP has the right to challenge in court the action of the minister or of a minister who is responsible for not abiding by the rules and the law, and in any such event, if the facts are proved, then the allocation or transfer of the land is quashed by the courts.

Why is this law relevant? For the simple reason that there are built in it checks and balances which allow the administration to move forward, but at the same time it keeps in check an almighty minister who thinks that he is disposing of the estate of his grandmother and he is the only heir. The check is not only political but legal. Although the procedure of challenge in court has not been used so far, the legal threat is always there, and that may have kept so many from thinking that they are all-powerful to transfer public property to private persons, which includes individuals and companies.

Recent facts

The recent statements made by Dr Austin Gatt, as a minister, come in direct collision with the principles of the law just quoted. As time was passing, I was thinking that we were taking our distances from the concepts that power is to be wielded by the substitutes of governors, much in the same fashion as their predecessors. It does not seem that this is the case.

If Parliament enacts a law, the first to show respect should be the very members elected as lawmakers. There is no justification that the laws may be shackling progress and inventiveness. What is required is that there is enough courage to change those laws which have become obsolete through the decades.

One of the laws which I do not consider obsolete is that no government minister should have absolute power, now or in future, to dispose of land, even if his intentions are the most honourable, honest and loftily motivated. Within ten years another minister may use this expedient and precedent to do what he likes, as if public property was his personal property.

If any changes are needed, my inclination is to limit discretion, especially where it is absolute. Secondly the time has come for a true and well-equipped administrative court, with powers to control discretion, its use and abuse. We tried to copy the moral power of the Ombudsman, as practised in northern European countries. The Ombudsman has been the target of attacks. Now a bill proposes to curtail the power of magistrates to conduct investigations which may reveal.

Decades pass, but the hobby of riding roughshod returns.