Learning that former prime minister Joseph Muscat was put on a major developer’s payroll soon after stepping down reminds one of what a German economist and sociologist had said in a lecture at Munich University in 1918. “He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives ‘off’ politics as a vocation, whereas he who does not do this, lives ‘for’ politics,” Max Weber had declared.
Making a distinction between those who live for politics and others who live off politics does not mean that politicians and those involved in political institutions should not expect to be remunerated. However, there must be a clear demarcation line between considering politics as a service to one’s country and its people and taking up politics as a business, simply a way to make good money, while in office and later.
Such a distinction or, rather, the failure to distinguish between the two, is what has led to widespread concerns about so-called ‘revolving doors’. This happens when politicians and civil servants move from the public to the private sector, raising serious doubts about accountability and transparency.
Does a person not have the right to work after leaving government employ? But, of course. Provided, however, that the person acts prudently and responsibly, especially if the new job is in the same sector.
A directive issued two-and-a-half years ago by the head of the civil service noted that the Public Administration Act provides for the regulation of revolving-door employment for public employees in positions involving regulatory or inspectorate functions.
This provision laid down that those affected could be asked to bind themselves not to “have a relationship of profit with a private enterprise or non-government body with which they have dealt during a period of up to five years prior to leaving public employment”. Such commitment would remain for up to two years “following resignation, retirement or termination from public employment”.
The idea, of course, is to avoid their new employer unfairly benefitting from their government experience and connections or that they favour a sector or company when still in public employ as an ‘investment’ in their future.
If such a safeguard was considered necessary with regard to a public employee, it should be deemed crucial in the case of politicians who call all the shots and pull all the strings.
Yet, the instruments forbidding former prime ministers, cabinet members or MPs from taking up employment in areas they had been responsible for remain lacking.
By the look of things, such practice is not uncommon. Just take Muscat. Information available in the public domain so far indicates he has a consultancy agreement with the Stivala Group, another with Swiss company Accutor, linked to the Vitals/Steward hospitals deal, and has received payments from Fortina Investments.
Prime Minister Robert Abela has said Muscat’s consultancy is “his own prerogative” and would not get involved in his predecessor’s private life. He is, of course, free to allow people to pull wool over his eyes. However, he should not be surprised that practices of the revolving-doors kind raise eyebrows and public censure.
One is free to exercise one’s prerogative and to expect one’s privacy not to be invaded. But a person who would have occupied such a high office as prime minister should be far more considerate and respect people’s intelligence before being so rash as to brazenly and unashamedly rush into situations that give rise to suspicion of still profiteering from politics.