Issues • 29 September 2002

Powerful patrons, conniving clients

Although the question for today’s issues asks whether or not patronage is ingrained in Malta, implicitly allowing for the possibility that perhaps it is not, this is something of a rhetorical question. Any Maltese who still counts himself among the living will tell you that patronage in Malta is not only deeply ingrained into the very fabric of society, but that it is part of the culture. The question that really needs to be addressed is just how ingrained it is.

Although it is a widespread phenomenon, manifesting itself in various forms in all civilisations all over the world, patronage does tend to make itself felt more strongly in specific areas; and the Mediterranean cultures are home to a very powerful presence of patronage. Ranging from Spain to Italy, to Greece and the whole of the North African coast, patronage is a force that has to be admitted and allowed for as a constant factor.

Patronage occurs when somebody, or more usually a group of people, seeks to gain something through channels which are outside those officially specified for the purpose. It forms a symbiotic relationship; those who need something from others gain favours, while those that are in a position to give out favours gain honour, dignity and power in the eyes of those who receive them. More importantly, the latter gain the right to redeem those favours at a future date. Sometimes, the form by which favours are called back is specified from beforehand; sometimes it is not.

What is granted through patronage? Favours of all sorts. In Malta we have had several classic cases of patronage in recent years. One glaring example is the glut of jobs that were granted by a panicky Labour administration prior to the 1987 elections. It is calculated that thousands were given away as frantic ministers and members of Parliament tried to muster the wherewithal to snatch yet another victory. We are still feeling the effects of that madness today as the country tries to shoulder on in lean times, overburdened with an overstaffed and inefficient public services section.

One episode in our history which saw the widespread use of patronage was when colour TVs were first introduced to Malta. It was necessary to know somebody who counted to even have a chance of getting one within a reasonable time. To simply register your name and wait to be called meant that you would be ignored, as other people who were further back in the list got preferential treatment because of the bribes they paid and the contacts they had. Another classic example of patronage is the way telephone lines were distributed when there was a great scarcity. Again, as in all cases of patronage, it was whom you knew and how much you were prepared to pay that counted, rather than your position on the official waiting list.

In modern society, patronage always brings about corruption and graft. The ‘jobs for the boys’ philosophy has, to a greater or lesser extent, always been a part of the equation when it comes to the hiring of equipment or awarding of contracts for government projects.

The same can be said of the government building schemes where plots which were meant to go to the needy for the princely sum of Lm100, were speculated upon by a few blue-eyed boys who managed to get their hot little hands on them.

Those who give out favours can expect a return on them. This return can take the shape of the reciprocation of another favour, the giving of produce or goods, a money payment, or the loyalty or allegiance of the person who would have received the favour. In Malta the last two items of payment are the ones most prized by those who are in a position to grant favours.

The effects of patronage tend to be negative and they tend to have long-lasting effects. We have already mentioned the legacy of the public service employees. The effects of patronage go far; it is parasitic in the sense that not only does it double the channels of movement through which goods and services move. But by doing this it creates a virtual black economy by using up and decreasing the assets and services which remain available for use through official systems. Consequently it promotes inefficiency, creates situations which are anything but economic and scuppers the concept of fair play and fair competition.