Kontrolli u bilanċi

Id-dibattitu dwar kif jitħaddmu l-kontrolli u l-bilanċi fid-demokraziji moderni hu wieħed kruċjali. Dawn il-mekkaniżmi huma meħtieġa biex jassiguraw li ma tispiċċax issaltan xi tirannija tal-maġġoranza jew in-niħilżmu ta’ xi minoranza; kif ukoll biex id-deċiżjonijiet ta’ importanza publika li jittieħdu mill-gvern u miċ-ċentri l-oħra ta’ poter isiru b’trasparenza.

F’Malta, dan id-dibattitu ma jsirx, anzi jiġi injorat għal kollox; inkella jitlaq biex jara kif minnufih idaħħal fostna arranġamenti li ħaddieħor daħħal f’pajjiżu… bla ebda kejl ta’ kemm jgħoddu għaċ-ċirkostanzi tagħna.

Forsi proposti hekk jispiċċaw aktar ta’ dannu mill-assenza ta’ kull rikonoxximent dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ kontrolli u bilanċi serji.

Bla għarfien ukoll tal-limitazzjonijiet li timponi soċjetà ċkejkna bħal tagħna: fejn kulħadd jaf lil kulħadd, jiġi minn kulħadd u jiddependi minn kulħadd: se jkun diffiċli tfassal kontrolli u bilanċi serji u effettivi.

***

IL-KORRUZZJONI FL-EWROPA

Għal uħud fil-Parlament Ewropew u barra minnu, hu utli li titqajjem polemika dwar il-korruzzjoni fil-każ ta’ x’allegatament jiġri fil-Bulgarija, f’Malta, fir-Rumanija u f’pajjiżi membri tal-Unjoni li jinsabu “lura”.

Meta għal darba tnejn, saqsejt għaliex ma jintbagħtux delegazzjonijiet Ewropej biex jistħarrġu l-korruzzjoni u l-abbuż ta’ poter fi Spanja jew Franza jew il-Ġermanja, bqajt bla risposta.

Fi Spanja hemm akkużi serji ta’ korruzzjoni mdendla fuq gvern tal-Popolari, inkluz bil-kbir fuq il-Prim Ministru Rajoy. Miegħu, il-partiti l-oħra rrifjutaw li jagħmlu koalizzjoni minħabba l-korruzzjoni. Każi qawwija jeżistu bl-istess mod fi Franza (l-eks President Sarkozy allegatament irċieva miljuni minn Ghaddafi biex jiffinanzja kampanja presidenzjali). Hemm l-iskandlu tal-Volkswagen, li allajbierek ma kinux l-awtoritajiet Ġermaniżi li skoprewh, imma l-Amerikani.

Is-soltu niddejjaq noqgħod f’kuntest Ewropew, niskandalizza ruħi b’dan jew b’dak. Quddiem l-ipokreżija sfaċċata ta’ ċerti Ewropej m’għadnix. Huma jużaw kontra l-gvern Malti, bl-appoġġ ta’ Maltin li messhom jafu aħjar, allegazzjonijiet ta’ korruzzjoni (fondati jew le) biex jilħqu miri okkulti.

***

DIŻRISPETT

Imbagħad kellna t-tinwiħ ridikolu tad-deputat Ewropew tal-Ħodor Sven Giegold, dwar kif minn Malta, l-gvern Laburista u/jew r-rappreżentanti tiegħu wrew “diżrispett” lejn il-Parlament Ewropew u d-delegazzjoni ta’ Diċembru li għadda biex tinvestiga l-istat tad-dritt f’Malta.

Giegold għandu l-aġenda tiegħu. Affarih kif ikompli jmexxiha. Għandu f’Malta min qed iċapċaplu u jappoġġjah.

Personalment ma nsib l-ebda problema inġib ruħi ukoll bl-istess ġesti u attitudni murija mir-rappreżentanti tal-gvern, li hu interpreta bħala “diżrispett” fir-rigward tad-delegazzjoni mmexxija mid-deputata soċjalista Anna Gomes. Kienet delegazzjoni bla ebda kredibilitá. L-istess jgħodd għar-rapport li ħarġet. Stramb kif il-membri tagħha jqisu li jistgħu jippontifikaw dwar l-istituzzjonijiet ta’ pajjiż wara żjara ta’ anqas minn jumejn.

English Version – Checks and balances

The debate about how to run checks and balances in modern democracies is a crucial one. Such mechanisms are essential to ensure that there is no take over by the tyranny of a majority or by the nihilism of a minority; as well as to ensure that politically important decisions by the government or other power centres, are taken under transparent conditions.

We have not had this debate in Malta. Indeed, it gets totally swept aside. Or instead it gets diverted by attempts that seek to introduce locally the arrangements which have been established elsewhere… without any consideration as to whether they apply to circumstances such as ours.

It might be the case that proposals made on this basis could end up having more deleterious effects than the total absence of any recognition that we need serious checks and balances to be in force.

Without an awareness of the limitations that exist in a small society like ours – where everybody knows everybody else, is related to everybody else, and depends on all the rest – it will be difficult to devise effective checks and balances.

***

Corruption in Europe

For a number of people at the European Parliament and outside, it is useful to raise polemics about corruption allegedly occurring in Bulgaria, Malta, Rumania and other EU countries which find themselves at the back of the pack.

When once or twice, I recently asked why European delegations are not sent to investigate corruption and abuse of power in Spain or France or Germany, I got no reply.

In Spain grave corruption accusations still hang over the government of the Popular Party, including its leader Prime Minister Rajoy. The other parties have refused to contemplate a coalition with him precisely because of corruption allegations. Equally, disturbing cases have arisen in France (where for instance, ex-President Sarkozy allegedly received millions of euros from Ghaddafi to finance his presidential campaign). Then there is the Volkswagen scandal, which God be praised, was not discovered by the German authorities, but by the US.

I usually do not like to cry scandal at this or that development in Europe. Faced with the blatant hypocrisy of certain European figures, I am no longer so reluctant. Helped by Maltese citizens who should know better, they repeat corruption allegations against the Malta government, that whether true or false, are intended to achieve occult aims.

***

Disrespect

Then we had the ridiculous bleating of the Greens’ MEP Sven Giegold about how from Malta, the Labour government and/or its representatives showed disrespect towards the European Parliament and its delegation of last December sent to investigate the rule of law in Malta.

Giegold has his own agenda. Good luck to him in proceeding with it as he thinks best. He has followers in Malta to applaud and boost him.

Personally I have no problem to also respond and behave in the same way as the Malta government representatives, which in his view, amounted to disrespect towards the delegation led by socialist MEP Anna Gomez. That delegation had no credibility. The same judgement holds for the report it published. It is so strange that its members felt they could pontificate about the institutions of a country in the wake of a visit that lasted for less than just two days.