Politicians do not miss an opportunity to claim that their mission is to serve the country and its people.
Yet, notwithstanding such declared lofty ideals, it is not uncommon to realise that quite a few are, in fact, there to see what they can get rather than what they can give.
Examples abound and are certainly not a recent phenomenon, though what we have been experiencing over these last years take the matter to a new high.
Since their decisions directly affect our daily life, the quality of those who represent the people in parliament is of paramount consideration. In this discussion, whether MPs should be full-time is regularly raised.
The commissioner for standards in public life raised the matter recently in an article in the Times of Malta titled ‘The elephant in the House’, referring to the need to pay MPs more.
However, the real elephant in the room, the top priority, is how high the people’s representatives can raise the bar of standards in public life.
In his article, the commissioner stressed that: “It is a sense of duty and a desire to serve the community that should attract people to political life and not the honorarium.”
Remuneration, of course, should be adequate, and MPs need to have all necessary resources as well as support staff and researchers to be able to do their demanding job without undue sacrifices, including having to allocate less quality time to their families.
Yes, the standards commissioner is right when he says it is in the taxpayer’s interest that MPs are better equipped to oversee the executive more efficiently and to carry out their legislative function in the drafting of bills. However, that will not be guaranteed simply through a more lucrative pay package. If commitment and the highest possible ethical standards are lacking, full- or part-time MPs can still continue to fail the people they pledge and swear to serve.
Let a deep and serious discussion start on the way forward for parliament, an exercise that will not be limited to just sitting and former MPs but also experts in other areas, and that will address all facets, including remuneration. But there is no need to rush to make it in time for the upcoming general election.
What is, however, an urgent matter is the level of reverence MPs enjoy, which, with hand on heart, one must admit has hit rock bottom, if gauged in terms of ethical standards rather than cronyism and favours meted out.
In this sense, the standards commissioner must be credited with continuously striving to raise the bar, with little if any success at all.
The blame must squarely lie with the Speaker, the prime minister and a good number of MPs themselves, in that order.
Political parties too must shoulder responsibility because, at the end of the day, they are the ones that choose or accept electoral candidates.
It is crystal clear that popularity rather than real substance is the top criterion on which they base their decision.
Solid potential candidates who can make a valid contribution to the country to get out of the deep whole it has dug itself into are unlikely to be encouraged to come forward even if full-time MPs are offered among the highest remuneration packages in the country.
Political history shows it was genuine love for the country, not just money, that motivated the handful of political leaders who stand out and whose names continue to be revered.