We have long had on paper the ethical standards which are due by MPs and, since 2018, a law that led to the setting up of the respective commissioner entrusted with investigating breaches of ethical standards by ministers, MPs and persons of trust and contributing to the improvement of standards of behaviour in public life.
As things stand at the moment, following years of innumerable revelations of dubious behaviour by many individuals in public office, I believe that it is a very damaging moment for parliament and for public standards in this country.
It cannot be right that, debate after debate, the conclusions of the independent commissioner for standards and the house committee on standards, conclusions that arose from in-depth investigations, continue to be ignored, rebutted or outright rejected.
It cannot be right to propose an overhaul of the entire regulatory system in order to postpone or prevent sanctions in very serious cases of ethical breaches by ministers and MPs. It cannot be right that this is frequently accompanied by repeated attempts to question the integrity of the commissioner for standards, whose office has been working within the system that parliament itself agreed to in 2018.
Indeed, in his annual report, the commissioner expressed his growing concern about how parliament’s reaction to his flagging of serious breaches of public standards was creating an unprecedented and deeply preoccupying situation accompanied by political attacks on the office of the commissioner.
The political system in this country does not belong to one party or even to one government. It is a common good that we have all inherited from our forebears and that we all have a responsibility to preserve and improve. The seven principles of public life require that ministers and MPs should show leadership in upholding ethical standards in public life.
So what are these seven principles? Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I find it hard to see how certain conspicuous actions committed by politicians in the past years in any way meet that test. There is a critical need for independence in the regulation of ethical standards in both government and parliament.
In spite of a complex tapestry of commissioner and committees, rules and regulators, policies and processes to regulate and enforce ethical standards, these standards have somehow been falling to record levels. Ironically, when such tapestry had not yet been worked upon, there was an unwritten code of conduct to uphold standards in public life that was satisfactorily adhered to by our past upright and seasoned politicians.
Perhaps it is time to assess how well the respective structures we have in place are working and to make recommendations for reform where room for improvements is identified and needed. We must recognise that a number of social and political trends have been contributing to increasing pressure on ethical standards, even before the coronavirus pandemic hit.
The political system in this country does not belong to one party or even to one government- Mark Said
First, due to significant and positive improvements in transparency, as well as the rise of social media, standards accusations and allegations have been causing political trouble before the commissioner for standards could assess the issues. Timeliness is critical in effective standards regulation but no commissioner today can beat the pace of the news cycle and social media. This means public debate on ethical standards can be frantic, highly charged and often misinformed.
Second, we live in an age of increased political polarisation. Ethical standards have always been used as a party political weapon. But in times of greater consensus, political leaders may have been more willing to step above the fray and do the right thing on ethical standards, even occasionally at some political cost.
Today, in a more divided country, party political gain is seen too often as a higher priority than adhering to the rules and norms that should uphold ethical standards in Maltese public life.
Third, and to the detriment of our entire political life and public life, we have seen a significant increase in intimidation and a severe coarsening of public debate.
Today, there is an increasing tendency to see those on the other side not as opponents but as enemies and there has been a huge increase in abuse and intimidation directed at those in public roles, both elected and appointed.
The deterioration in the tone of our political discourse has been impacting ethical standards more broadly by preventing a fair and reasoned assessment of the issues at hand and by deterring many from entering the public debate. Ethical standards are the shared values that underpin the legitimacy of democratic governance.
In our political system, an electoral mandate does not confer unlimited and untrammelled power on those in office. Our system of checks and balances means power must be exercised for the public good and not for private gain. When ethical standards drop, public consent and confidence will weaken, undermining the bonds of trust that keep our politics and governance functioning.
Too often, we hear standards do not matter as stories of sleaze produce little movement in the polls and, therefore, clearly the public is thought not to care. A scandal erupts, public concern increases, regulatory arrangements are then reviewed and office holders reassess their conduct.
After a period of time, complacency sets in and the cycle repeats. To believe ethical standards are redundant is to risk a long-term decline in the very foundations of trust that sustain Maltese democratic life.
Mark Said is a lawyer.