Sant, Gonzi insist on power of incumbency abuse safeguards

Former prime ministers Alfred Sant and Lawrence Gonzi have called for proper institutional safeguards to stop governments from abusing their power of incumbency.

Unsurprisingly, in driving home their point, both pointed to abuses they attribute to the opposing party while in government.

In comments to Times of Malta, Sant said Malta’s inherent preference for “person-to-person”, “friend-to-friend” deals serves to undermine institutional coherence and effectiveness, not least when the power of incumbency is involved.

He said the only way to successfully regulate against a government abusing its power of incumbency would be to give independent institutions the power to roll back objectionable decisions.

Gonzi, who had edged a close-fought battle with Sant in the 2008 election, told Times of Malta he would like to see binding legal safeguards in place. He suggested a freeze on government recruitment be enshrined in law and that the auditor general be given explicit powers to probe pre-election spending, significant appointments and government advertising once an election is called.

Claims that the power of incumbency is being abused have again raised their head during the campaign leading to the May snap election called by Prime Minister Robert Abela. 

Opposition leader Alex Borg has claimed “hundreds” of people have been queuing outside the government job agency in Gozo for a promised pre-election job. 

He said that, right after Abela called the early election, Malta was full of Labour billboards, which had been used by the government just hours earlier.

So how would Sant and Gonzi tackle the problem?

Sant: Media used to ridicule this

When contacted by Times of Malta, Sant started with a jab at what he described as the media’s sudden interest in the issue.

“It’s rather curious that the established media are today taking the power of incumbency seriously. In the past, they ridiculed my friends and me when we claimed that the power of incumbency had been massively deployed by the Nationalist administration as it drove Malta into the EU and won the 2003 and 2008 elections.

“All administrations have the means through their control of the government’s administrative apparatus to create situations and rewards that favour their supporters and persuade others to vote for them. Not least, it happens if electoral behaviour is widely based on the expectation of patronage inducements,” he said.

Sant, who governed Malta between 1996 and 1998, notes that the key question is when do practices based on the power of incumbency exceed the bounds of what could be considered legitimate.

“The only way to successfully regulate this would be to have institutions that function really independently and are able to decide where red lines are being crossed by governments and individuals. These institutions would then have the power to roll back what they find objectionable.

“Everywhere such arrangements have been attempted, they have functioned imperfectly. In Malta, there’s the added complication that, as a people, we dislike to conduct public affairs through institutional mechanisms but, ultimately, prefer person-to-person, friend-to-friend deals. That mostly serves to undermine institutional coherence and effectiveness, not least when the power of incumbency is involved,” Sant said.

In Malta, there’s the added complication that, as a people, we dislike to conduct public affairs through institutional mechanisms but, ultimately, prefer person-to-person, friend-to-friend deals. That mostly serves to undermine institutional coherence and effectiveness, not least when the power of incumbency is involved

Gonzi: Recruitment freeze should be law

Gonzi, Malta’s prime minister between 2004 and 2013, notes that the power of incumbency is an inherent feature of parliamentary democracy.

Control of the legislative timetable and the ability to set the timing of an election all confer advantages on the governing party that no opposition can fully match.

“But there is a world of difference between using those advantages in the normal, legitimate exercise of government and exploiting them to corrupt the democratic process itself.” 

He said Malta’s political history offers a textbook example of where that line has been unashamedly crossed.

“In the weeks immediately before the 1987 general election, the Labour government of Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici employed approximately 8,000 people across the public service, including through the Malta Drydocks and Malta Shipbuilding entities, which, eventually, became unsustainable and cost millions of taxpayers money to resolve once and for all, a feat which was achieved also under a Nationalist administration,” Gonzi pointed out.

According to the former prime minister, the contrast to the practice adopted by Nationalist governments when facing elections could not be starker.

He argued that, upon the dissolution of parliament prior to each general election, Nationalist governments consistently applied a self-imposed freeze on all public sector recruitment, precisely to ensure that the machinery of the state was not used to purchase votes with taxpayers’ money.

“That was the right thing to do and I am proud that it was our consistent practice,” Gonzi said.

He described the practices being seen today as being “disturbingly familiar” and will, ultimately, come at a cost to the entire country.

“The pattern is one the Labour Party has returned to with remarkable consistency whenever it senses electoral pressure, and the cost, in inflated wage bills, unproductive public sector positions and long-term damage to labour market efficiency, will, once again, have to be borne by the country as a whole long after the election is over.

'No wonder foreign workers will have to be imported to fill the gap within the private sector,” Gonzi noted.

He believes Malta urgently needs binding legal safeguards rather than reliance on the good faith of whoever happens to be in government.

“I suggest the recruitment freeze that Nationalist governments applied voluntarily should be enshrined in law.

“Beyond that, the auditor general should be given explicit powers to scrutinise pre-election public spending commitments, significant appointments and government advertising in the period following the announcement of an election date, and should include powers to freeze, reverse and cancel any resultant abuse,” Gonzi said.