Defining government

You will not be overly concerned if I ask myself a very fundamental question related to a basic tenet in a democracy. 

What the f*** is the role of a government?

That very simple question is in fact hard to answer. But let us for argument’s sake jot down a number of options, based on my perceptions and those of others. They could be false or true or downright ludicrous perceptions. 

I have organised the questions in a sort of multiple choice format and please feel free to send me your answers. 

Y stands for yes, N for No and WTF for WTF.

The reason that I put forward this rather infantile multiple choice is because I was engaged in some brain activity and wondering when this government, or any other government for that matter, will start looking at the bigger picture.

For example, it is fine to open the floodgates for the construction industry and sustain an economic boom. But to do this without any consideration for the social fabric of this country and the landscape and the state of the environment is downright short sighted.

For example, to allow for super rich foreigners to buy a passport may make short-term economic sense, but to hide their names and their real intentions is simply not on.  More so when we see it as a huge achievement to attain citizenship.

For example, to argue that we should be tough on tax evasion and not subscribe to a zero tolerance policy against all those who evade tax just does not do. It stresses that there is no equality when it comes to giving back what is due to the State.

And when we have a government that is no government at all, we come to a point that the concept of senso dello stato evaporates into thin air.

It is very much like the European Union, which not only serves as a gravy train for many but is a source for many to have a comfortable job and pension. There is no real amour propre. If there were anything of the sort, individuals would not think it par for the course to take up lucrative jobs, such as Jose Manuel Barroso did in joining Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs was implicated in the financial crisis that began with US sub-prime mortgages, and in helping Greece cover up its debt.

Needless to say Barroso is not the only hypocrite in the political establishment. It proves that at the end of the day his role in the EU was all about fame, power wielding and feathering his nest.

Which I guess applies to many of our politicians in government – this government or any other government.

Looking beyond the Barroso example, it is not difficult to find similar examples on the local front. Such as those of party secretaries general who, after leaving their party, land a comfortable job with big business. Or even those who were ministers or prime ministers.

When these things happen people, at least those with some grey matter, should not be blamed for being irreverent towards the political class.

The big question is: if it is not government that must be in charge, then what should it be?

I guess it has a lot to do with the way governments are elected and the kind of democracy that elects governments. And it has a lot to do with the revolving door principle.

If it is wrong for the former head of the compliance unit, Manfred Galdes, to resign his sensitive job and join a legal firm involved in the financial world that itself could have been put to the rigours of some serious compliance, then the same should apply to all politicians.

Politicians should be expected to serve and be remunerated but they should also be obliged to remove any doubts that they are doing this for the wrong reasons.

If we want serious politicians, then one important aspect is addressing the revolving door principle. Government officials and politicians cannot be trusted if they are planning to become richer and more comfortable with those whom they became chummy with during the years of governing and fame.

***

A lot has been said about PBS, and I guess for posterity’s sake I should clarify a few points, considering that reporters from competing newspapers opted to write stories before verifying them.

So, first of all, I have had a programme on TVM since 1999. Before 2013, there were never any competing programmes from competing media houses. Not a single one. In the period when I was unceremoniously stopped from TVM, other personalities were roped in. But no media houses.

At one time after 2009 I was asked by Anton Attard to consider a programme with Pierre Portelli. Nothing came of it. For reasons that are rather irrelevant now, at the end of the day the other host who was brought in turned out to be Joe Mifsud, who was recently appointed magistrate, the understanding being of course that one would be Nationalist leaning and the other Labour leaning.

In 2013, I returned to TVM, and other media houses came in too. 

There has been talk that I accepted to share a programme in this schedule on a Friday with Joe (aka Peppi) Azzopardi. This is not true. I had and have no intention of doing this. I do not like to lean to any side. The problem is that when you discuss a subject it is interpreted as a political statement. Peppi and I come from different worlds, and though we share some views on content and style, we are worlds apart. As we have always been from the first days we knew each other when we worked and argued in the founding days of Alternattiva Demokratika.

My intention has always been to continue with ‘Reporter’ as a current affairs programme, as has been advertised on Facebook for some time now. I can be presumptuous but not so presumptuous to stand in for someone who has a gift in fundraising and turning a theme into entertainment for television. That was the understanding with Anton Attard, made amply clear over and over again in several meetings. 

And finally, no matter what is said and bandied around in other media, in my programmes I push no agenda, nor even anyone else’s. The only agenda I push is based on what the television viewers are expecting: that is unadulterated debates without the hang-ups and allegiances that are so incredibly rooted in so many programmes in the past and present.

Unlike those presenters who have appeared on TVM, I never headed a political station, nor did I have a political portfolio, never had a programme on One TV or NET and nor do I have future political aspirations to enter politics and be part of government!