Tag: democratic accountability

Categories
Politics

The Value-Mouth Relationship

Much is being made in the Labour-friendly press and media about the supposed strategic “U-turn” that is in progress in the spanking new halls at PN HQ. I will look into the fallacy of the “u-turn” argument in one of my next posts and will attempt to explain how rather than a “u-turn”, the current within PN thinking might actually be a correct interpretation of christian-democrat politics for the 21st century – always admitting that there is one version of correct in politics (let’s call it “more correct”).

What is more important at this junction is that the nationalist party wants to be seen as being seriously committed to a set of updated values – a commitment underlined by the fact that Lawrence Gonzi spoke in terms of a “pacta sunt servanda” (patti chiari, amicizia lunga) approach. That’s right. If this exercise is not going to turn out to be an exercise in shiny marketing rewrapping of the kind that was slowly proving to be the undoing of the nationalist party’s values then it should not be limited to fine talk but should be transformed into concrete action.

The fourth point in the new PN document presented at the General Council is a direct reference to “taking decisions responsibly”. With the commitment to take decisions responsibly comes the onus to take responsibility for one’s actions. A tautology if ever there was one but a clear one for that. Accountability can no longer remain a buzzword in the propaganda circles when you are committing yourself to strengthening the value-driven approach to politics.

Which is why Joseph Grech of the Gozo Channel Co. should no longer hold the position of Chairman today. A ministerial reprimand does not suffice in the eyes of those who are supposed to be learning the new lessons and approach of “patti chiari, amicizia lunga”. I don’t know if it was the young turk Carol Aquilina who stated that the PN rightly choses people it can trust  to manage important positions in government or state-related companies. Sure Carol, but the corollary to that reasoning is that the PN trusts such persons to carry out the job because it believes that they are the right vehicles to bring into effect the policies that are inspired by the PN’s basic principles. The circle of trust is double – the PN government trusts them with putting policy into action but it does so as the custodian of the trust “lent” (and I emphasise the lending part) to it by the people.

Joseph Grech’s move to call back a Gozo Ferry was not a gaffe. It was an administrative no-no of the highest order – described as an “abuse of office” in most law books. A serious government wanting to impress with the value of responsibility cannot factor the idea of “resignation” out of the equation… otherwise the message is not of responsibility but of “friends of friends” come what may.

The meter of updated values has to begin to apply as of yesterday. Even when selecting its round of candidates for next elections the PN must bear this in mind. You cannot whitewash over past errors simply by wearing a new dress. Pardon the cliche but actions are worth a thousand words… and the PN needs to start acting fast.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Legatus non violatur

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

credti rating marks.jpg
Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor‘s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

  • Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
  • Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
  • Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]