At Monday’s press conference, as the multi-millionaire prime minister, son of a former president, railed against “the establishment”, some of us were puzzled. If everyone who disagrees with Robert Abela is part of the establishment, why aren’t more of them guzzling down State retainers and yachting the summers away?
One source of confusion: the term “establishment”. Abela implies it is inherently wicked and anti-democratic. It’s nothing like that.
When the term is used properly, it refers to the proper established institutions. It means anyone in major decision-making roles or in a position to influence them.
All the senior positions of the State – president, prime minister, speaker, chief justice, judges, attorney general, police commissioner, central bank governor, to name only a few – are part of the establishment. So would their key advisers, representatives of important professional bodies and significant economic figures whose own decisions would have an impact on the government.
We should want it to be that way: quite simply, the incarnation of the pillars of liberal democracy. A judge doing his or her duty is how law and order are established.
The establishment is only wicked and sinister when the decision-makers conspire to betray their office. They serve themselves not us. Which is exactly what is alleged to have happened in the Vitals deal.
The sinister establishment at the heart of this case is not the magistrate. It’s the coterie of decision-makers that entered into the Vitals deal, with the help of a legion of henchmen and sycophants.
Abela targets the investigator. We don’t yet know if Magistrate Gabriella Vella committed any errors of judgement in the course of her inquiry. We do know, however, that three other elements of the establishment – a judge, the auditor general’s office and the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry, all basing themselves on multiple witnesses – have already declared that there was something rotten at the heart of the Vitals deal.
In the course of fulminating against the establishment, Abela criticised Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, for being part of the European establishment and – listen to this – doing what her role demands “instead of serving the national interest”.
It tells you a lot about Abela. For him, what’s bad is carrying your duty and not subordinating it to your own ends. It also exposes the shallowness of his political calculation. It’s in carrying out her duty properly that Metsola paves the way for other Maltese, in the future to be considered eligible for high office. Anything less and Malta’s reputation would be further damaged.
Seeing Abela give himself away like this would ordinarily be amusing. But we are discussing grave matters. He has called the magistrate a political terrorist. The Labour machine has put a target on her back, publishing her name and photograph.
Asked about this, Abela could only play word games. What’s wrong with publishing a name and photograph, he asked, if names and faces of the judiciary are broadcast at the beginning of every judicial year?
And what’s wrong, he continued, with telling voters about who is taking decisions to try and influence their vote?
In this situation, we need everyone to rise to the occasion. If our prime minister can’t do this, then there is a greater burden on the rest of us- Ranier Fsadni
The right question surely is: why do people need to know what the magistrate looks like? That is intimidation of the judiciary – not just this magistrate but also the other magistrates who will need to decide the 19 court cases that stem from this inquiry.
This is a terrible time for Malta. We are at the start of a legal process that may reveal, with court-grade proof, the rotten state of one of the pillars of our democracy. And, just when we need all the other pillars to hold firm, our executive undermines another pillar.
In this situation, we need everyone to rise to the occasion. If our prime minister can’t do this, then there is a greater burden on the rest of us.
First, there’s the role of the president. In her inaugural speech, Myriam Spiteri Debono extolled the role of the four pillars of democracy. It is time for her, in measured terms, to remind everyone that those pillars should not be undermined. Even the most restrained statement would be a powerful signal. (This piece was written before the president's statement on Wednesday).
Journalists cannot be called an enemy of the people – which is what they’re being called when accused of serving an establishment that wants to usurp power. And a magistrate cannot be accused of terrorism.
Second, Abela has said voters need to make up their mind about what to make of this inquiry. But we can’t do that unless the inquiry is publicly available.
It’s a perversion of democracy for Abela to make an electoral issue of the inquiry report – calling it a witch-hunt – and for the opposition to make its case, if the voters can’t see the report for themselves.
Finally, the implications of the inquiry are not only electoral and judicial. They are also economic.
Steward Healthcare has declared bankruptcy in the US; it owes Bank of Valletta some €30 million. It seems Edward Scicluna, the Central Bank governor, will also be charged in court. That’s one stiff cocktail of bad debt and reputational damage that could affect several industries.
It can’t be left for the politicians to define what this scandal means. Voters need to be informed about what the fallout means for the economy. The professional associations need to make themselves heard.
And if Abela calls them the establishment, they should retort: “Yes, we’re the adults in the room, whose work, dear boy, keeps your yacht afloat.”