|
Recent revelations that yet another authority has been mired in a bribery scandal make for depressing reading. This time, it is the Malta Maritime Authority that appears to have been hit and sunk by reports of widespread corruption, with no fewer than 800 mariners under investigation for allegedly bribing top officials in return for their licences.
Two officials have also been suspended over the scandal; one of them being the head of the Small Ships Licensing section. As the Maltese expression pricelessly puts it: “Il-huta minn rasha tinten.”
Were this merely an isolated occurrence, it would still be cause for national shame. However, coming in the wake of a number of high profile corruption cases, it unfortunately only adds to a widespread perception of endemic corruption on an almost nationwide scale. Recent examples include the tsunami at the Law Courts, where two senior judges (including the former Chief Justice) have been indicted for allegedly accepting bribes; the Malta Transport Authority, still reeling from two “cash for licences” scandals in quick succession; recent allegations of wholesale corruption during the construction of Mater Dei Hospital; and now this: another indication that we are currently in the grip of an administrative crisis affecting virtually every department you care to name.
Clearly, the time has come to take stock of what, exactly, is rotten in our state. And the first step would be to acknowledge that mistakes have been made in recent administrative reforms.
Partly as a result of EU membership, and partly also out of an understandable drive towards achieving a “smaller” government, many responsibilities previously shouldered by the Civil Service have now been apportioned to a number of supposedly autonomous “authorities.” Most would argue that this is a good thing, as it sidesteps the proverbial bureaucracy associated with the former service, thereby resulting in greater efficiency. But improved efficiency has come at a cost: for while the Civil Service is undeniably bureaucratic, it also abides by a time-honoured set of principles and procedures. Known as Estacode, these guidelines may not in themselves eradicate corruption; but they certainly establish a code of ethics whereby public officers’ actions may later be measured. To the best of our knowledge, however, no such corresponding code exists to govern the actions and decisions of our multifarious authorities, which are free to operate in the absence of any clear checks and balances (although there are, naturally, exceptions: MEPA, for instance, vigorously claims to adhere to strict procedures, although the results of its decisions do not always reflect this claim).
Another, arguably undervalued aspect of the Civil Service is its inherent meritocracy. Granted, this may not always work in practice; but it remains a fact that the Civil Service operates on a tightly organised multi-tier system. If nothing else, one needs to pass an exam to be admitted to the Service; promotions and appointments are similarly governed by strict rules and procedures. At a glance, the same cannot be said for the “authority” system, where chairmanships and other appointments appear to take place at the discretion of government ministers, without any apparent need for justification, and people are hired haphazardly.
But by far the most glaring difference between the two systems concerns transparency and accountability. Perhaps because of the very rigidity of its own hierarchy, there is not a single department within the Civil Service in which the chain of command is not painstakingly clear. By way of contrast, recent developments suggest that this is far from the case with our newfound bonanza of quangos and authorities. Even the MMA scandal, which has so far been characterised by a complete void insofar as ultimate responsibility is concerned, should point us in the right direction. That is to say, towards the long overdue generation of a culture whereby top officials assume full responsibility for all that occurs “on their watch.”
Until this culture change sets in, we can only expect the sapping of public confidence in virtually all major public institutions to continue unabated. Clearly this is a situation that must be addressed without delay, if anything is to be salvaged from the wreckage. |
