Malta’s political system is characterised by the dominance of two parties that alternate in power. Whichever party wins an election has a free hand to appoint party loyalists to almost every position of power. This system reinforces the tribalism that is the rock base of local politics.
One of the significant weaknesses of this system is that it obscures the demarcation lines that should distinguish allegiance to a political party from loyalty to the professional duties that officials in crucial positions of authority should have. Public officials should not only have independence of thought but should be seen to show no commitment to any political party.
The Nationalist Party has called on the new head of the civil service to sever all ties he has with the Labour Party. Some government supporters will react with the “whataboutism” technique – the practice of responding to an accusation of partisan excesses by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
The winner-takes-all philosophy of Maltese politics has divided society for many decades. It has nurtured political tribalism where loyalty to the political tribe is more important than loyalty to anything else, including the common good.
It means that tribe members will go to any lengths to defend their tribe’s leader from any criticism or wrongdoings, regardless of facts. It is an “us versus them” mentality, where “them” are seen as morally suspect and morally dangerous while “us” are saints by comparison.
The fallacious strategy of political tribalism is one of the main reasons the checks and balances that should exist in every democratic system have been seriously weakened in some of our institutions. There is undoubtedly a growing number of citizens who doubt the commitment of our political leaders to always do what is right for the community.
Invariably appointing party activists and loyalists to influential positions of trust is an outdated practice that promotes political polarisation. It renders ineffective the checks and balances that should exist in any democracy.
Some will argue that such practices are common in other democracies, including the US. The problem with the increasing polarisation and tribalism is that it encourages divisions to form, weakening society.
Our political leaders are often perceived to be too busy demonising the other, creating fear and stoking anger. This is part of the ad hominem fallacy that devalues an argument not on its merits but because of the perceived negative qualities of those who propose it. Our political leaders too often demand loyalty from their tribe and, in return, they confer the security of belonging.
These aspects of tribalism are ingrained in our politics. Political identity is becoming just as important as, or more important, than family ties or religion. Those called to serve in a position of trust are invariably expected not to bite the hand that feeds them.
Those who willingly or unwillingly agree to comply with this unwritten condition of engagement often turn out to be mediocre leaders who lack the independence of thought needed to promote the public interest before any other priority.
Some political activists are indeed well qualified to serve in critical public roles for the service of the community.
When they are offered posts in the public service or essential institutions, it is right that they should be called to take a step back from active involvement in any political party.
Senior civil servants are supposed to act independently of party politics. Being allied to one political party only raises suspicion and lack of trust among the public.