The heart of the matter

Early last April, the House of representatives proceeded to debate a bill to amend the Civil Code, opening the way for victims of corruption to claim damages. The Bill also sought to protect whistle blowers in that it laid down that no action could be taken against an employee, in the public or private sector, who would have reported any suspected act of corruption in good faith.

I recall writing in this newspaper that, incredible as it sounded, corruption was considered only as a criminal offence and, at that, only if it involved the area of public administration.

Bribing the manager of a private bank to authorise a loan did not qualify as a criminal offence until recently when the Criminal Code was belatedly amended to remove this distinction between the pubic and private sector.

The amendment to the Civil Code was meant to open the way for Malta to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption.

In itself, the Bill constituted a sea change, but, with the honourable exception of The Times, the local media were insensitive to it during the first month following its publication. Its significance was not highlighted in anticipation of the debate and the proceedings of the first debating session were ignored by all the other media.

The proposed law sought to protect and promote the public interest in more ways than one even though it could, arguably, have gone further. Yet the main body of parliamentary reporters did not bat an eyelid.

On May 3, I focused on this remarkable omission in this very page, raising the question as to whether the democratic antennae of the main body of the media needed repair or whether this was an unintended demonstration of Mediterranean cynicism. In each case, the situation should have given rise to democratic concern. It did not.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and vigilance is credible if the armour against corruption is credible and enjoys the support of alert, investigative media.

It is easy to go through the motions and to enact laws and to draw up codes of ethics. The point is to see that they work. They will not work unless the people held responsible for their implementation are accountable. Responsibility is at the legal as well as at the political level. So should accountability.

This is not the only big handicap that frustrates the forces fighting against corruption. The big guns of the law are aimed at those who abuse power for personal gain or for the benefit of a group to which one owes allegiance. It is not only those who abuse power for gain who are corrupt. Those who tempt them and offer them inducements to break the law are equally corrupt - probably more so.

It is high time to bring justice much closer to the law so that when the courts consider corruption cases, those who are charged with accepting bribes should be standing in the dock, shoulder to shoulder with those who offer them.

There is consensus that corruption corrodes the standards of public life, damages the institutions of government, the cohesion of society and the management of the economy.

In an economy which is on the road to development, where the political fabric may be fragile and the economy is by definition fragile, corruption is doubly harmful because it is a heavy tax on economic activity. It could blunt competitiveness and escalate costs.

Conceivably, it could also distort policy-making because bribery could entice government and departments into entering into specific commitments in the same way that heavy dollops of financing from donor countries could entice governments into undertaking big projects.

The reform of public institutions may be delayed by the fear on the part of board members that loss of their powers may result in loss of incomes.

Corruption deters sensible foreign investors from risking their money. It certainly can give a shot in the arm to the rich and the powerful at the expense of the poor. It therefore becomes a political irritant with the potential of destabilising the democratic process.

It is easier to get away with in an authoritarian economy - but the introduction of the free market does not necessarily end it.

Liberalisation and privatisation are obvious danger spots. Carried out in a half-baked way, they are prone to temptation because every act of discretion could prove lucrative.

It does not follow that the introduction of democracy puts an end to graft. Corruption has managed to survive and to rear its head in the older western democracies. On the other hand, corruption is more likely to be exposed and confronted in a society where free elections are viable and established institutions function well. Allegations of corruption have toppled several governments and put notorious politicians out of harm's way when corruption could be proved.

It is in this context that the role of an alert electorate, backed and supported by the investigative media, assumes considerable importance.

It seems to me that Malta has good reason to be proud in that it has an imposing façade by way of being equipped to fight corruption. The laws are largely in place, although they could be tightened up. There are codes of ethics galore. The institutions are sound. And the lip-service is very, very convincing.

It's when the occasional big bang occurs that people begin to tremble and to ask whether the edifice will withstand the shock. One gets the impression that, at given moments, the need is felt for mechanisms and instruments capable of establishing a balance between the rule of law and the rules of accountability, and of giving real meaning to all the things we say about ethics and values.

That is the heart of the matter. Looking elsewhere for solutions or trying to find scapegoats will not solve Malta's core problem. The problem is to fight corruption on all fronts at all times, and to hold to account those who fall short of their legal and political responsibility to safeguard the public interest.