A question of propriety

Opposition leader Dr Simon Busuttil must surely be aware that his proposal for a commissioner to regulate the ethical behaviour of parliamentarians may well raise eyebrows, given the number of cases in which his own party has been accused of ignoring or bypassing a toothless ministerial code of ethics.

 Nonetheless it is becoming increasingly clear that the tools with which parliament is currently equipped to deal with such matters remain woefully inadequate; and while one may have reservations about the specifics of Busuttil's proposal, it is true that something urgently needs to be done about a state of affairs in which ministers and MPs are answerable only to a non-binding ethical code, which is in any case hopelessly outdated.

This much was in evidence when Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi was forced onto the defensive over the recent appointment of his wife as special envoy to the Far East. Speaking on Reporter on Monday, Mizzi pointed towards the ministerial code of ethics in his defence, claiming that the appointment of Mrs Sal Mizzi Liang did not contravene any of its specific regulations.

Given the sheer importance attached by the Labour opposition to the same code of ethics when similar allegations surfaced regarding former finance minister Tonio Fenech, it is easy to interpret this reply as an attempt to deflect the question by subliminally evoking the shadow of past controversies affecting the PN.

If this was Mizzi's intention, it is hardly a unique political strategy: indeed it seems to be a standard response to criticism by the Labour administration on a wide variety of issues, including Enemalta, Air Malta, public transport and many others. It is becoming customary for government officials to rebut all accusations of mismanagement by simply pointing towards the track record of the previous administration in the same area.

Quite frankly it is irrelevant how many skeletons the previous administration has in its own closet. What the public expects (and deserves) to hear in such circumstances is not a reminder of how poorly the previous government fared in the same context. On the contrary, it is reassurance that the present administration will fare better. This can only achieved through the adoption of a more serious way of doing politics, and certainly not by simply resorting to the usual game of finger-pointing.

But there is another, more sinister aspect to the invocation of the ministerial code of ethics as a blanket measure of what is considered 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' from a cabinet minister. The code alluded to by Konrad Mizzi was drawn up and approved in December 1994 - almost 20 years ago - and has never been amended since. As a result, much within this code is now in serious need of an overhaul: examples of individual amendments would include the amount of money and/or the value of objects deemed 'inappropriate' to accept as gifts.

Another concern is the increasingly cavalier attitude of many MPs towards the annual declaration of assets - a crucial exercise, if the words 'transparency' and 'accountability' are to have any real meaning in this country.

The bottom line is that Maltese politics has simply changed beyond recognition since this code was first drawn up. EU membership alone has radically altered the job description of individual ministers, and with it the demand (both locally and abroad) for more openness at all levels of government. Even without this consideration, there is mounting evidence that the electorate is no longer swayed by the traditional 'us and them' approach: if the PN was voted out on perceptions of cronyism and corruption, Labour could well suffer the same fate - if it likewise disregards the same demands.

Besides, Mizzi's response also betrays an evident misunderstanding of the role of parliamentarians and their obligations towards the public. Implicit in his words is the notion that the two parties are answerable only to each other - as if the measure of how one party should behave in government is determined by how the other party handled the same role in its own day.

This may well have been the case in the past, when Maltese politics was dominated by patriarchal leaders at the helm of monolithic party structures. But those days are now over. In today's fast-changing environment, political parties are answerable to an electorate which represents a much broader spectrum of concerns than the sum total of the two parties themselves.

Paradoxically it was this selfsame change within the electorate - a growing demand for more seriousness from its government and reluctance to support parties merely on the basis of tribal allegiance - that propelled the Labour party to its historic victory last March. From this perspective, it is surprising that the same Labour government should start repeating the mistakes of its predecessors so soon.

It remains debatable whether Dr Busuttil's proposal for a parliamentary commissioner is really necessary, when the same objective could arguably be achieved with fewer resources just by amending the existing code of ethics.

Either way, something must be done to address the perception of a government which seems to consider itself above such trifles as ethical conduct.