The last few years have been a testing time for democracies, from social media being weaponised to hack voters’ minds to the election of populist governments focused on short-termism. 

The result: weak and incompetent government if you’re lucky, corrupt government if you’re not.

The greylisting of Malta by the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog (FATF) is one result of the weaknesses in our political system and modus operandi.

For Malta to do everything in its power to protect its interests sounds right but threats of using its veto powers at EU level against countries which failed to back it at the FATF is both childish and nonsensical.  Instead, we should be taking a long hard look at how we run our country and use this event to catalyse efforts to clean up our act.

My experience is in business, not government, and I want to see if we can extrapolate good practices used by companies, including adopting digital tools, to help improve countries. The following thoughts present a radical new approach to our democratic process.

If we look at well-run companies, we see great CEOs at the helm, supported by a great team. In that vein, it follows that well-run countries need great prime ministers, supported by a strong team of ministers. But how do we define what ‘great’ is in these roles?

Moreover, the process of appointing the C-suite vs a prime minister and his/her cabinet are radically different.

Could we incorporate some principles adopted by the corporate world to help improve our governments?

Step 1 – Create job specs

We all know what the CEO’s role is.

Many have a job specification that outlines their role and responsibilities, criteria that one’s success is measured against and objective, transparent rules on accountability.

There is no job spec for a prime minister or any ministerial role, for that matter. So we need to start by defining the role and responsibilities of the job, the background and track record the ideal candidate should have and the character traits they need to demonstrate, like integrity.

Before you scoff, it is worth remembering we are supposed to address ministers as ‘Honourable’. I am merely pointing out it is time we have people in office who deserve that title.  

Step 2 – Conduct interviews

In the corporate world, candidates for any role go through an interview process.
No such process exists for anyone vying to be in government. Instead, they embark on publicity campaigns and spin to win votes. The result is the current quality of government.

Candidates should undergo an interview process conducted by an objective panel. For the sake of transparency and engagement, interviews could be livestreamed and perhaps some members of the public allowed to ask questions.

Recordings would be available online where voters can continue to engage, asking questions and sharing their views.

The footage could also be vetted by factcheckers to review content and raise issues that may not have come up (or were glossed over) during the interview.

Step 3 – Campaigning

We need to eliminate spin and empty promises on campaign trails. Instead, we need to force candidates to share how they aim to run the country, which issues they will tackle, the feasibility of those plans and consequences if we don’t take a particular path. There also needs to be a means to hold them to account.

Again, fact-checkers and subject matter experts will review and rate the soundness of the proposals to ensure that what is being promised can be delivered. In strong democracies, fact-checking is the role of the press, a press that needs to be responsible and independent, that is, not tied to a political party and where journalists are not fearing for their lives.

Step 4 – Voting

We need to ensure voters understand what they’re voting for. Providing educational content as part of the voting process is one way we could do this. It also has the added benefit of counteracting the impact of spin and the pandemic of disinformation. The aim is to provide objective educational content that explains the policies and strategies proposed by the various parties and candidates vying to run the country.

We need simple, objective presentation and discussion of the issues in a concise,
engaging way that is easily accessible to all. We could even introduce some gamification to ‘test’ citizens’ understanding of the policies, not to exclude voters but to stimulate engagement and enable the curators to measure effectiveness.

Step 5 – Oversight and accountability

Once elected officials are in place, there needs to be an ongoing review of their
progress, holding them accountable to promises made on the campaign trail.

This does not mean they cannot change their mind. In fact, we want leaders to alter course if new data comes to light that would make their previous strategy defunct – where decisions are made because it will make the country stronger rather than to win more votes in the next election.

All this is possible. But is it probable? In a nutshell, no, because there’s a critical problem with this scenario or any scenario requiring change. It requires the people in positions of power to put in place a system that will hold them up to scrutiny. And turkeys don’t vote for Christmas!

So, we find ourselves at an impasse. If we don’t have a radical overhaul of our systems, our country’s future and its people are in jeopardy. We will continue to have a system akin to that of Animal Farm.

We cannot continue to operate in a system where corruption is expected and citizens vote according to colour: red or blue.

This is not just a Malta problem, it’s a global problem.

Our advantage is that we have a small country with a high voter turnout. If we overhaul our system and bring our country back on a positive footing, it would be a great example of what can be done when there’s the right will and action from the people.

Isn’t that ultimately the purpose of democracy?

Deborah Webster is founder & CEO of AMANIcircl