Sleaze is endemic in most political systems. Some see it as a symptom of “post-democracy”. Political sociologist Colin Crouch argues: “A post-democratic society is one that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy but in which they increasingly become a formal shell. The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite.”
The disgraceful Vitals hospital deal sits perfectly with this definition. This newspaper keeps revealing new depths of sleaze involved in that scandal.
The latest revelation is that Pakistani national Shaukat Ali, one of the masterminds behind both the Vitals and Steward hospital deals, milked millions from the running of the hospitals’ concession along with his family.
Joseph Muscat is undoubtedly a culprit, at the very least because he was in charge at the time. Like most failed politicians, he is now trying to reinvent himself in a new role. But, in January, he became directly connected with the scandal when his house was searched by the police on suspicion that “consultancy” payments he received were kickbacks in disguise from the deal.
Muscat denies any wrongdoing and downplays Ali’s claim of being an “unofficial adviser” to the former prime minister. He says he has “no say about how people describe themselves”.
To understand the depths of the problem of sleaze in politics, we must start by recognising that democracy is not just about voting. People are interested in politics – and are more likely to see it as legitimate – to the extent that it cares about their interests. This is certainly not the case when millions of euros of taxpayers’ money are squandered in deals like Vitals/Steward. Muscat started it and Robert Abela has still not resolved it.
All payments linked to the hospital deal are being examined by a magisterial inquiry into Vitals, triggered by rule-of-law NGO Repubblika. Our courts of law are notoriously slow in delivering justice, while the courts of public opinion are easily distracted from the serious issue of corruption, perhaps failing to sufficiently appreciate it is the public’s money that ends up in corrupt people’s pockets.
Triggered by scandalous incidents, and catalysed by social media, many swarm around the issues – posting and protesting. But, disconnected from civil institutions and with nowhere to go, energy dissipates rapidly, leaving only a bitter residue of resentment.
Political leaders engage advisers to bridge the gap between people and politics by managing public opinion. Political loyalties within parties, between voters and parties and between citizens and government are underpinned by personalised promises of reward and punishment. To remain in favour with its supporters, the government needs to continuously reward them through a system of “clientelism” that delivers benefits in return for political support. Abela may have checked the sleaze that characterised Muscat’s administration.
But ignoring the corrupt practices of the recent past is a long tail that risks alienating more people from traditional democratic politics.
The lack of political will to address the abuses of past politicians will hang like an albatross around the necks of today’s political leaders. They are too focused on short-term electoral calculations that guarantee their political longevity.
The rule of law, while being indispensable in a democracy, does not guarantee democratic excellence in the way the behaviour of politicians impacts ordinary people’s lives.
Organisations including political parties, trade unions, charities, business associations and consumer groups must do more to identify the causes and interests they have in common to serve the community. The politics of sleaze must one day be banished.