1. Understanding Corruption
What exactly is corruption in Malta? The trail of MEPA incidents provide an interesting subject for this kind of question. We had allegations (an interesting word of itself) of corruption all of which can be watered down to the allegation that someone obtained something unduly and that the obtaining of that thing was through an action of corruption.
The act of corrupting therefore is necessary for Mr X (whoever he is) to obtain something – a right, a permit, a grant – which he would otherwise not be entitled to (or for which he would have to overcome much competition to obtain under normal conditions). In the case of MEPA it is almost always permits – permission to proceed with development that would otherwise either not have been allowed or would have required a much longer period to obtain.
If we forget about the pre-elections Mistra Saga, the spotlights have recently shone on two public personae in connection with MEPA permits. First we had Victor Scerri, President of the Nationalist party and his Bahrija application and then – an inevitable retaliation from “the other side” we had Joseph Mucat’s speedy permit at the time Alfred Sant was in power.
In both cases the allegation is that the process that ended with the issuing of a permit was for some reason Out of Order. Scerri’s should never have been awarded. Muscat’s came out too soon. The Scerri Saga extends to questions raised by the MEPA Auditor and further questions raised about the very MEPA Auditor who was raising questions in the first place. Muscat’s case is curious in that the reason that foul play is alleged is that the permit was issued with suprising efficiency.
The unmentionable word is of course corruption. But what kind of corruption? Is it one due to undue influence being exerted by public personae? Are we looking at basic principles of administrative law and abuse of administrative power? How does that work exactly for Victor Scerri? Or for that matter – how does it work for Musumeci – the erstwhile architect who judges MEPA weekly on the columns of MaltaToday? (And who replied with a “do I look crazy” when asked if he had exerted any influence on the decision makers).
Is it corruption when a case officer treats a particular application with (speedy) gloves because the subject of the application is a public persona? Does it remain corruption if the aforementioned public persona never actively exerted pressure on the decision makers in question?
I believe that this is the question that we should be asking. Is the system geared to automatically distinguish between different types of applicants? Does it (un)consciously discriminate between the ought-to-haves and the eternal-have-nots? Is there some kind of “power of incumbency” translated into “psychological subservience”? The Italians have a term for it in football – sudditanza psicologica. Is it possible that the web of corruption is simply a modus operandi that has been nurtured by the bipartisan needs of favours to the deserving?
What I am saying here is that there might not have been any passing of backhanders or bungs. Hell, there might not have been any namedropping anyway. The eagerness to please the “politi-rati” of the country surely has adverse affects on the way daily administration is run (*). That is probably why a politician (whether in government or not) can probably fast-track any simple application with the simple mention of his name. He might not have promised a reward – he might not even imply it – but the simple fact that he IS a politician of this class of patrons might lead the administrator on the other side of the desk to assume that something is expected of him – ad majorem politici commoditatem.
So. What do you think? Can we redefine corruption that way? If so, what is the solution?
(*) See Stephen Calleja on public admin and meritocracy in last Sunday’s Indy.
