Same problem, different ‘solution’

The House of Representatives is currently debating a reform that will ultimately permit sitting MPs, both government and opposition, to also take up positions on various government boards and entities.

At a glance, this immediately sounds an alarm over potential conflicts of interest. In fact it is ironic that the incoming Labour government - which had so often objected to precisely such conflicts of interest when still in opposition - would prioritise precisely this aspect of its own manifesto upon assuming the mantle of power last March.

By the same token, it is just as ironic that the Nationalist opposition would now oppose an idea which effectively echoes former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi's own approach to a very similar concern back in 2010, when he created the post of parliamentary assistant in a very transparent (and ultimately unsuccessful) bid to accommodate a few troublesome backbenchers.

But no matter how ironic the situation, one must also question why the present government is undertaking an initiative that appears to fly in the face of accepted practice when it comes to delineating the precise boundaries between the various supposedly autonomous branches of the State.

Asked this very question at a press conference, Muscat insisted that his aim was not (as the opposition implied) to appease any Labour backbenchers who may have been upset at their omission from the Cabinet or any other comparable post.

He also dismissed criticism by PN leader Simon Busuttil to the effect that he intended to 'buy' the complicity of the opposition by offering individual MPs cushy positions in the public service.

And as we have to expect from politicians, he also deflected the question by simply pointing towards the fact that the previous Nationalist administration had likewise tried to do the same thing by placing then Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando as chairman of the Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST).

Muscat may even be correct to highlight the double standards employed by his political opponents... but this in itself does not make his own proposal any less questionable. Nor is Muscat himself responding to the same pressures faced by Gonzi, who hung onto power almost literally by a thread.

The extent of Muscat's hold on government was in fact illustrated during the same debate: when PN whip David Agius called a division in the House last Wednesday, government comfortably won the ensuing vote, even if no fewer than five government MPs were absent on the day.

Given the sheer enormity of his own nine-seat majority, it becomes a little hard to understand why Prime Minister Joseph Muscat would be so keen to avoid a repeat of the problems that dogged his immediate predecessor.

One must therefore question the real reasons why he is forging ahead with a controversial initiative that seems, at a glance, to offer very few advantages to the country, while simultaneously creating enormous potential for abuse. The question becomes doubly relevant when one also looks at the actual boards and authorities that may one day soon have government or opposition MPs among their members.

Fielding questions by the press, Muscat revealed it was the Attorney General, after being approached by the government, who came back "with a number of entities" to be considered for this reform.

These entities include the National Audit Office, the Malta Crafts Council, the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, the Malta Sports Council, Malta Enterprise and the Malta Film Commission, among others.

Admittedly some are more sensitive than others; but at a glance it seems entirely incongruous - inconceivable, almost - that the National Audit Office, whose task is to assess the performance of various branches of government, may soon be composed of members of the same government it scrutinises.

Even the less immediately sensitive areas (like the film commission or the crafts council) are not exactly free from the potential for conflict of interest. One of the main arguments against the proposed reform concerns the fact that, while MPs swear allegiance to the Constitution, they also owe an inevitable, unspoken debt to the constituents who elected them to office in the first place.

One would like to think that MPs on either side of the House are above the temptation to avail of their powers and privileges in order to favour their own constituents, but sadly, past experience shows that this is not always the case.

Given that all the abovementioned boards take day-to-day decisions that inevitably favour some people as opposed to others - awarding contracts, for instance, or hiring employees - even the most seemingly harmless appointment can, in fact, be a recipe for petty corruption.

Nor does it help that the government has quite frankly not explained its intentions when undertaking such a potentially hazardous reform. The only 'official' answer given so far is that the experience acquired by the MPs as a result of their appointment will ultimately benefit the country as a whole, as this experience will be translated into better service as MPs.

This may even be true, but does it effectively counterbalance legitimate fears that the arrangement may also do a disservice to the same State? This is a question Muscat will have to answer if he is to convince us that his intentions are indeed above suspicion.