The Malta Independent on Sunday
By the time you read this it is probably official that Dr Fenech Adami, having reached age 70 yesterday, is holding on as Prime Minister purely ad interim until the PN elect a new leader in his stead.
For the PN Dr Fenech Adami did more than anyone could have ever expected. Getting an outright majority in five of the six elections he contested and winning government in four of these fives times, is a record which in unlikely to be matched by anyone in my lifetime. He modernised the Party, took it to the mainstream middle class of society and managed to build solid alliances with other power bearers of society which ensured that the PN still looked respectable when it was seriously under-performing and that Labour by contra was painted disrespectful even when operating normally.
As Leader of the Opposition Fenech Adami showed little respect for the right of the majority to rule as democratically mandated. In his three stints as Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1981, from 1981 to 1987 and between 1996 and 1998 he showed unwillingness to behave as a responsible and constructive opposition and instead openly obstructed the majority government in the execution of its mandate. Perhaps one should be lenient in judging his such behaviour between 1981 -1987 given that his minority in constitutional terms was in reality a majority in voting terms giving moral authority to question the government`s democratic credentials.
As Prime Minister, and effectively the leader of the country, Dr Fenech Adami`s performance is a mixed bag. He certainly brought to government a more relaxed way of administering showing more respect to democracy when in government than when in opposition. Having total executive power with generally comfortable legislative parliamentary majority and comforted by benign considerations of the other power bearing centres of society, Dr Fenech Adami could afford to loosen the State`s excessive control of the economy ( through free trade policies), the executive (through local councils) and the media ( through private radios and TV stations). This was a refreshing change to the central command style of Labour`s 16 year stint from 1971 - 1987.
However he is leaving behind as legacy an economy which has not been kept competitive and flexible to win in the global market, an economy whose growth is underpinned by unsustainable over-consumption, and with a burden of fast-growing debt which severely restricts his successor`s manoeuvrability to engineer an economic turnaround.
In summary Dr Fenech Adami`s `money no problem ` live for today` style of economic management has exhausted our debt capacity, has burned the proceeds of various privatised assets and left us with little resources to invest in the necessary up-grading of our economic infrastructure.
I can hear shouts of protest over this judgement arguing that the accumulated debt is covered by infrastructure investment which was neglected by Labour administration of the 80`s. I agree that for a time this worked well. The state of the country in 1987 when Dr Fenech Adami took over its leadership was one free from debt and rich in financial resources but significantly poor in its state of infrastructure. There was full justification to incur deficits and debt to up-date our basic infrastructure. But beyond the first term of 1987-1992 the pendulum was allowed to swing too far the other way and certainly we got no infrastructure development which could justify the rapid build-up of debt even in relation to the GDP, let alone in absolute terms.
It is furthermore unfortunate that Dr Fenech Adami`s departure is happening under a cloud of the RCC case.` Recent court judgement inevitably raises the question whether he has intervened beyond prudence and allowed personal emotions to taint his judgement in the granting of the pardons to a self-admitted contract killer who was a former personal bodyguard.
Society did not get fair value for the three presidential pardons given to his ex-bodyguard which only pinned in a definitive manner a drug deal case which the police had caught red-handed and which they could have concluded without the help of presidential pardons.` The major question as to who actually commissioned the contract killing of the Prime Minister`s personal assistant remains unresolved.
It is easy to allow circumstantial evidence to play tricks with imagination and fantasize that the Prime Minister`s judgement in advocating the presidential pardons was not objective and was subject to external pressures which the Leader of the Opposition defined as blackmail.
This is too serious an accusation to levy without solid proof. But now that it has been raised surely we cannot have the issue simply resolved by the odd libel case. Society`s opinion in not necessarily formed in the court rooms.` The discharge of the accused mandator in the RCC case does not prove that he did not actually do it. One cannot prove the negative. It only proves that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he did it.
In similar vein even if Dr Fenech Adami were to win a libel case against the Leader of the Opposition for his blackmail remark it does not disprove the issue but it would only prove that there is no sufficient corroborating evidence for it.
As a member of society who paid very dearly in granting three presidential pardons to RCC`s self-confessed contract killer with pretty little return, I appeal to the Prime Minister`s good sense of corporate governance to give us one for the road before he leaves. I suggest the appointment of an independent board of enquiry consisting of one or more retired judges(s) to investigate the whole decision making process for granting these pardons and to report whether the executive made the best possible objective decision in the circumstances or whether their judgement was clouded by personal emotions or other pressures caused by the first hand knowledge of both the victim and the beneficiary of the pardons.
George Bush and Tony Blair have agreed to submit to independent investigation their behaviour on matters of substance which have failed to pass the test of public opinion. In this vein it is time that the executive here proves that it is sensitive to public opinion and not just rely on the once every five year mandate which often reflects the demerits of others rather than the merits of the majority choice.
By the time you read this it is probably official that Dr Fenech Adami, having reached age 70 yesterday, is holding on as Prime Minister purely ad interim until the PN elect a new leader in his stead.
For the PN Dr Fenech Adami did more than anyone could have ever expected. Getting an outright majority in five of the six elections he contested and winning government in four of these fives times, is a record which in unlikely to be matched by anyone in my lifetime. He modernised the Party, took it to the mainstream middle class of society and managed to build solid alliances with other power bearers of society which ensured that the PN still looked respectable when it was seriously under-performing and that Labour by contra was painted disrespectful even when operating normally.
As Leader of the Opposition Fenech Adami showed little respect for the right of the majority to rule as democratically mandated. In his three stints as Leader of the Opposition between 1977 and 1981, from 1981 to 1987 and between 1996 and 1998 he showed unwillingness to behave as a responsible and constructive opposition and instead openly obstructed the majority government in the execution of its mandate. Perhaps one should be lenient in judging his such behaviour between 1981 -1987 given that his minority in constitutional terms was in reality a majority in voting terms giving moral authority to question the government`s democratic credentials.
As Prime Minister, and effectively the leader of the country, Dr Fenech Adami`s performance is a mixed bag. He certainly brought to government a more relaxed way of administering showing more respect to democracy when in government than when in opposition. Having total executive power with generally comfortable legislative parliamentary majority and comforted by benign considerations of the other power bearing centres of society, Dr Fenech Adami could afford to loosen the State`s excessive control of the economy ( through free trade policies), the executive (through local councils) and the media ( through private radios and TV stations). This was a refreshing change to the central command style of Labour`s 16 year stint from 1971 - 1987.
However he is leaving behind as legacy an economy which has not been kept competitive and flexible to win in the global market, an economy whose growth is underpinned by unsustainable over-consumption, and with a burden of fast-growing debt which severely restricts his successor`s manoeuvrability to engineer an economic turnaround.
In summary Dr Fenech Adami`s `money no problem ` live for today` style of economic management has exhausted our debt capacity, has burned the proceeds of various privatised assets and left us with little resources to invest in the necessary up-grading of our economic infrastructure.
I can hear shouts of protest over this judgement arguing that the accumulated debt is covered by infrastructure investment which was neglected by Labour administration of the 80`s. I agree that for a time this worked well. The state of the country in 1987 when Dr Fenech Adami took over its leadership was one free from debt and rich in financial resources but significantly poor in its state of infrastructure. There was full justification to incur deficits and debt to up-date our basic infrastructure. But beyond the first term of 1987-1992 the pendulum was allowed to swing too far the other way and certainly we got no infrastructure development which could justify the rapid build-up of debt even in relation to the GDP, let alone in absolute terms.
It is furthermore unfortunate that Dr Fenech Adami`s departure is happening under a cloud of the RCC case.` Recent court judgement inevitably raises the question whether he has intervened beyond prudence and allowed personal emotions to taint his judgement in the granting of the pardons to a self-admitted contract killer who was a former personal bodyguard.
Society did not get fair value for the three presidential pardons given to his ex-bodyguard which only pinned in a definitive manner a drug deal case which the police had caught red-handed and which they could have concluded without the help of presidential pardons.` The major question as to who actually commissioned the contract killing of the Prime Minister`s personal assistant remains unresolved.
It is easy to allow circumstantial evidence to play tricks with imagination and fantasize that the Prime Minister`s judgement in advocating the presidential pardons was not objective and was subject to external pressures which the Leader of the Opposition defined as blackmail.
This is too serious an accusation to levy without solid proof. But now that it has been raised surely we cannot have the issue simply resolved by the odd libel case. Society`s opinion in not necessarily formed in the court rooms.` The discharge of the accused mandator in the RCC case does not prove that he did not actually do it. One cannot prove the negative. It only proves that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he did it.
In similar vein even if Dr Fenech Adami were to win a libel case against the Leader of the Opposition for his blackmail remark it does not disprove the issue but it would only prove that there is no sufficient corroborating evidence for it.
As a member of society who paid very dearly in granting three presidential pardons to RCC`s self-confessed contract killer with pretty little return, I appeal to the Prime Minister`s good sense of corporate governance to give us one for the road before he leaves. I suggest the appointment of an independent board of enquiry consisting of one or more retired judges(s) to investigate the whole decision making process for granting these pardons and to report whether the executive made the best possible objective decision in the circumstances or whether their judgement was clouded by personal emotions or other pressures caused by the first hand knowledge of both the victim and the beneficiary of the pardons.
George Bush and Tony Blair have agreed to submit to independent investigation their behaviour on matters of substance which have failed to pass the test of public opinion. In this vein it is time that the executive here proves that it is sensitive to public opinion and not just rely on the once every five year mandate which often reflects the demerits of others rather than the merits of the majority choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment