Give in to the mob at your peril
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority was set up to build distance between the politicians who run the country and the people who decide on planning and development. This was a good step, and a reassuring one.
For decades, we had been subjected to the depredations of politicians who behaved like Father Christmas with their big bags of permits for the obedient people and their lumps of coal for those who were in the ruling party’s bad books.
It was not unknown for money to change hands. Politicians with the power to grant permits or withhold them were sitting on bags of gold. The scope for corruption was great.
An apolitical planning authority, hived off from the government and hedged around with barbed wire and an electric fence, was what Malta needed. And it was what Malta got.
Then things began to go askew. Controversial decisions were taken. Dubious steps were made. Procedures were not transparent. Doubts were raised. Rumours spread about backhanders and conflict of interest.
Things became too bureaucratic, with applications bottle-necking and backing up in queues of four thousand.
When the planning permission system is inefficient or perceived to be corrupt, people try to circumvent it. Then there are cries of ‘Unfair!’ as those who beat the system get away with too much while those who go through the system sometimes end up with nothing.
As resentment built up towards the real and perceived problems with the planning authority, the inevitable happened. Those whose thinking is on the muddied side began to agitate for a return to the system we had rejected already: political interference in the planning process.
The shouts and demands for politicians to interfere directly in planning became louder when Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar set itself up as the voice of the people and began to lob planning balls into the prime minister’s court, demanding that he intervenes personally to halt or direct planning procedures, thereby overriding the established regulatory system.
Those of us who are not quite so short-sighted, who believe in the rule of law and in the right of individuals not to be subjected to the whims of politicians where their property is concerned, were fully aware of the dangers inherent in the demands being made by FAA and its spokesman Astrid Vella.
It is inconceivable that the prime minister should have the power to interrupt the development of a building on the basis that he doesn’t like it or that Astrid Vella and The People are objecting to it. And with that sort of power, he can do the same for any other reason.
He can harass a developer because he doesn’t like him or wishes to pay him back. And the flipside is that he can aid and abet a friend in a controversial development.
It’s not as though we haven’t been there before, and it was most unpleasant.
The underlying and very silly assumption being made by certain people is that, because they trust this particular prime minister more than they trust the planning authority, they would much rather he made the decisions.
Ah, but Lawrence Gonzi is not going to be prime minister for ever – and even so, why we should we be reduced to a situation in which our prime minister decides such matters?
It is dangerous for us because we do not know who the prime minister will be 15 years down the line, and it is potentially ruinous for him.
When the prime minister wasn’t responsible for the decisions taken by the MEPA, he was held responsible aall the same and pilloried. So just imagine what lies in wait for a prime minister who actually is responsible for those decisions.
I find it curious that Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar and the other organisations with which it holds hands have adopted this schizoid approach to the nature of prime ministerial power.
On the one hand, they say that the prime minister has too much power and takes decisions without consulting anyone. On the other hand, they wish him to take on the powers of a petty despot or absolute monarch and decide arbitrarily, or on the basis of what Astrid Vella’s people like or dislike, who may build what, when and how.
Their thinking is muddled and their reasoning is dishonest. But sadly, the prime minister has given in and it may yet prove to be his undoing.
When I voted in approval of his electoral promise to take on responsibility for the planning authority, I believed that what he had in mind was reforming the existing system to make it more transparent, putting in place controls to make sure that conflicts of interest are done away with, that loopholes are closed and that there is as little scope for corruption as humanly possible.
I did not imagine that we would be seeing a return to the days when politicians made planning decisions based on who and what they liked and what would pay off in terms of electoral victory.
I certainly did not vote for a return to the system in which a very loud, forceful and unelected small group of people twists the government’s arm into doing what they want.
That’s what I voted against in 1987.
I am not any happier with the situation because the thugs of today come from my home parish of Stella Maris in Sliema, speak with smart accents and spend their Sundays at Tigne Beach. Nobody voted for those people and they have no right to run around trying to bully others into submission with their megaphones and their ‘you won’t get our vote’ performances on Super One.
The prime minister has released his proposals for reforms at the planning authority. These include shifting responsibility for planning policy from the authority back to the politicians.
This is a serious business indeed, and only short-sighted fools can applaud it, along with those who are imagining already the opportunities for blackmail, pressure and exploitation to their own personal ends.
Like Astrid Vella, I trust Lawrence Gonzi’s judgment and it is beyond dispute that he is incorruptible. But unlike Astrid Vella, I understand that decisions like these cannot be taken on the basis of the here and now, but with an eye to what comes next: the long term.
I also have the imagination and foresight to see that placing this kind of power in the hands of a prime minister is not just unacceptable, but extremely dangerous.
In this, I am at one with the national trust, Din L-Art Helwa, a serious organisation of long-standing repute, which takes a considered approach to such matters.
Unfortunately, precisely because of this considered approach which does not make for newspaper headlines or political controversy, Din L-Art Helwa’s voice has been drowned out by the screaming through megaphones of a couple of redundant housewives who have found their calling as folk leaders.
This is not unusual. Joan of Arc had nothing much to do, either, when she heard voices and put on a suit of armour to lead The People.
FAA’s views are the political equivalent of the pasta dishes served to long queues at a popular eatery in Ta’ Xbiex. They were always going to have citizen appeal, for the simple reason that rather a lot of people confuse emoting with thinking.
While Mrs Vella and her FAA are all for political interference in planning, Din L-Art Helwa has issued a statement saying the opposite.
“While all policies must follow the environmental and development strategy set by the government,” the national trust said, “the details of planning policies should be drawn up and implemented at arm’s length from politicians and central government…”
“…While it is true that the MEPA has been subjected to a lot of pressure and many bad decisions have been taken, shifting the MEPA’s responsibility for policy back into the hands of ministers and politicians is a grave mistake. It is a step back into the past, when Din L-Art Helwa and many others campaigned in the 1980s for an independent authority to be entrusted with planning policy.”
For precisely this reason, Din L-Art Helwa refused to be a signatory to the press release issued jointly by other organisations, FAA among them, demanding that the prime minister intervene to stop the building of a house in Bahrija Valley.
As Martin Galea, Din L-Art Helwa’s president, explained to me in a telephone conversation about this matter, the solution to the problems with the MEPA is not a reversion to the 1980s system of planning-power in the hands of politicians, but fine-tuning the MEPA’s systems and overhauling others.
Let’s put it this way: if your windows are giving you trouble, you fix the windows, not rip them out and return to the good old days of hanging empty sacks over the apertures.
But half-formed ideas and half-baked notions have taken root.
Mrs Vella has sold to her people the theory that direct political interference in the planning process is a good and desirable thing, using to illustrate her purpose the example of what was achieved in scuppering plans for a cathedral museum beneath St John’s Square.
What Mrs Vella fails to explain properly to her people – perhaps because she hasn’t grasped the distinction herself – is that the prime minister’s calling of a halt to the application process for the museum was not political interference or an overriding of the regulatory process.
The prime minister represents the government, and the government, along with the archbishop’s office, is responsible for St John’s Cathedral. The cathedral foundation is not composed of random people, but of representatives of the government and the archbishop’s curia.
And so the prime minister, along with the archbishop, did not interfere in another body’s application in his role as the prime minister, which he cannot do as things stand at law. He merely withdrew his own application as the representative of the government.
Clearly, this was not understood by those who call themselves the people.
Mrs Vella and her cohorts have done nothing to disabuse them of the notion that the prime minister can and should interfere in planning – which is why we have had demos and press releases calling upon him to do with the building of that place in Bahrija what he did with St John’s.
Political leaders must be careful always to isolate the voice of the mob and not give in to it. Mobs – even smart mobs calling themselves the people – rarely root their arguments in logic, reason and the common good.
Their thinking is as poorly evolved as that of children: in the here and now, and hang what comes afterwards.
I am not one for biblical metaphors, but in a country which systematically indoctrinates its children and claims to be profoundly Catholic, it is astonishing that one of the greatest examples of the deeply distressing consequences of a leader giving in to the mob, against his better judgement, does not spring immediately to mind.
Pontius Pilate bent his will to that of The People, who today would be carrying placards lacking wit and be led by some misguided upstart with a megaphone.
And just looked what happened. The chocolate egg industry was born.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Seems like the Times are getting the maltastar syndrome!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090716/local/man-in-critical-condition-after-accident-in-cospicua
Update 2: Man in Cospital accident again in critical condition
The condition of the 48-year-old man from Gudja injured in a traffic accident in Cospicua took a turn for the worse and he is once again in a critical condition.
The man was hit by a Suzuki Alto in Coronation Street, Cospicua, driven by a 20-year-old from Cospicua at around 6.30 a.m.
His condition improved later in the day and he was out of danger but he has now taken a turn for the worse.
Not to mention the swine flu updates.
Boy is there trouble coming in 2013…
If you are trying to say there’s no haxi in MEPA, then I suggest you befriend somebody who works there ( not corruption per se more like vomit-inducing nepotism). I’m sure you can criticize the FAA, without sounding like you think MEPA is successful (which it is not).
[Daphne – Read my piece again. That is exactly what I am NOT saying.]
I read the first 6 paragraphs and stopped short to comment.
Just finished reading the whole thing. My bad.
Daphne….you were looking forward to seeing Bruno right? You can have a sneak at fastpasstv.com – it’s there, obviously not the best picture and sound, but hilarious – short too, 76 mins.
Very interesting article containing some serious food for thought. But, by the way things work in Malta, can we really hope that an organisation like MEPA can be truly transparent, corruption-free and not influenced by politicians? Is it really in the interest of the people we vote to power to have such an organisation, ie, one that they just cannot touch?
I stand to be corrected, but was one main ingredient of the reform, the removal of policy making by MEPA?
Even if the MEPA portfolio now resides with the Prime Minister, I presume that any policy changes require Parliament approval, thus both sides will debate and approve any policy changes. MEPA will be a regulatory body administering policies approved by Parliament.
I may be mistaken, but is this not the most democratic and transparent way of hopefully satisfying even off the cuff critics such as FAA ?
I totally agree that with the argument that development policy should be decided at arms length, as DLH said, and not left to the whims of politicians. I don’t know about others, but I certainly don’t want a return to days of Lorry Sant and Patrick Holland and their cronies. The shame of it all is that MEPA never set policy in the first place, but only made recommendations to the politicians with respect to development. Therefore, in real terms, nothing has changed. The decision to set up a policy unit under the wings of the OPM is simply a change of location for the team that recommends policy now.
John, you are quite wrong there. MEPA does not simply make recommendations but establishes policies. It is true that they have to be endorsed by the responsible minister but they are essentially the policies as formulated by MEPA.
Contrary to what you might think, whoever formulates a policy does not decide whether a particular development may be allowed or not. To give you some examples of what we’re talking about, there is a policy which states that new horse stables have to be at least 200 metres away from the Development Scheme but not more than 300 metres away from the nearest building. This applies to all stables in Malta and whoever has formulated it cannot possibly have done so to favour a particular application.
Other policies state that all new agricultural reservoirs have to be underground, that all ODZ boundary walls have to be constructed of dry stones (except where safety may be an issue), greenhouses have to be screened by trees, agricultural tool rooms can only be allowed for registered farmers, oil-pressing facilities can only be allowed if associated with mature olive groves which have been in production for a number of years, etc. Yet another policy states that an application cannot be accepted if on the site there are illegalities such as unauthorised development.
As you can see these are very general principles and do not depend on the “whims of politicians”. The important thing is to apply them scrupulously and consistently.
A flawed article based on the assumption that decisions by MEPA were not within a political responsibility. What you are seeing is the transfer of that responsibility.
[Daphne – Decisions were not taken by politicians. They will be now. This is a good piece in The Times today – read it http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090716/opinion/flawed-system-or-humans Michael Falzon describes something equally dangerous: a welter of opportunities for bribery at the lower end of the scale. ]
Michael Falzon hit the nail on the head.
One should distinguish between decisions on development applications and policy making. On the former everyone agrees that the politician should not intervene. (Everyone except FAA and Ramblers who are far too short-sighted to realise the implications of having the PM intervene every time they disagree with a permit )
On policy making it is a different matter. The law originally provided for the Planning Authority to prepare policy without reference to government but this was evidently non sensical. Policies on land use effect all sectors. We had a situation where inter-related policies were being drafted by two public sector “arms” – government preparing sectoral policies on the one hand and Planning Authority preparing land use policy on the other. It was for this reason that the law was later changed so that all land use policy prepared by MEPA required endorsement of the minister.
It is now being proposed that land use policy unit will be within OPM. This has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that there will be better policy coordination across government especially because ti will be located within OPM. The main disadvantage is the risk that policy will be prepared without proper reference to technical aspects.
It is still unclear what will be the exact role of government in policy-making. The reform document talks of “policy direction” and seems to suggest that, although government would have the last word, policy-formulation would be undertaken jointly with MEPA.
MEPA would have two roles: “to provide technical input to the Ministry during policy formulation and to translate Government policy into concrete plans…”
While FAA wanted the PM to intervene in specific cases, pollcy-formulation is generalised and (should) apply to every application.The present system is that the MEPA directorates formulate policies which then have to be approved by the MEPA Board and finally sent to the responsible minister to be endorsed.
There are advantages and disadvantages in both the present system and the proposed one. In my opinion, apart from policy-formulation, DLH should have focused on other aspects, such as policy-application. The DCCs have sometimes agreed with applicants’ architects that the policies are only “guidelines” and not to be followed to the letter. At other times applicants’ architects argue that certain developments have to be allowed because they respect the letter of the policies even though they might go against their spirit. I think this is partly what gives rise to so many inconsistencies.
Another source of inconsistencies is that regulations, policies and local plans have all been developed separately and are sometimes in conflict with each other. This has to be rectified and, in any case, it has to be decided which piece of legislation has precedence when there are conflicts.
Completely agree with you that the Prime Minister’s decision was extremely dangerous. And yet, you insist on placing the blame on a a couple of ‘redundant housewives’, instead of seeing this decision for what it really is – an intentional concentration of power in the OPM; and God forbid, a change in environmental policy every couple of 5 years.
FAA wish they had played a role in this decision. They didn’t, so stop giving credit where none is due and start finding fault where it really lies.
[Daphne – It was clearly a reaction to the hysterical behaviour of FAA. That’s the way things (don’t) work. I, on the other hand, believe that bullies – and they are bullies – should be faced down.]
Prosit Daphne – wished to let you know of my total agreement with you on this issue. I sent this letter to The Malta Independent moments ago.
“May I offer my heartwarming congratulations and agreement to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article in The Malta Independent on 16 July 2009 entitled ‘Give in to the mob at your peril’. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised reading this highly critical piece of the PM – and from Daphne none the less. On this very rare occasion I have to agree wholeheartedly with Daphne on her view of the Prime Minister’s recent decision to take over the policy and the decision making processes of MEPA. This outrageous and politically risky response reflects the PM’s view that MEPA has failed. The PM of course also failed with this kneejerk response to the megaphone mouths. Instead of trying to tweak an existing problem he has decided to take it over all together. You would think there is an election round the corner – surely the problem could have been fixed in time for the PM to gain some much needed kudos rather than reacting to a small but albeit loud mob. Politicians should always be at arm’s length in any planning decision-making process. They can of course determine the overall policy objectives; that is what they are elected to do, but they should never be involved in the decision=making process. The call from “the people” for him to take over decisions reflects the poor decision-making processes that exist within MEPA. An appropriate and balanced response to this valid concern should have been an independent review of those processes. Instead the obviously flawed process is now maintained with final decisions resting with politicians or their minders. Although there may be no corruption, even a perception of an opportunity for corruption should be eliminated and instead the Prime Minister has now created an opportunity for this perception to grow and grow and grow. Sham,e Gonzi, shame. The big developers must be laughing all the way to the bank.”
Raphael, I think you are exaggerating and, with all due respect, you have no clue what development-planning entails.
Can you give us an example of this “opportunity for corruption” that you mention? What sort of decisions do you imagine that the PM will be taking, for which developers must be laughing?
None what so ever Antoine – just that the perception now exists. Power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Incidentally, Raphael, didn’t you say that you would never post on Daphne’s blog? I think your exact words were “My mistake was getting sucked onto her blog – never again.”
Antoine, it seems to me that you are actually endorsing what I wrote. You say that at the present time the minister must endorse policy formulated by MEPA. It is what I said. MEPA only recommends policy and needs the nod of the powers that be. And I never said that whoever formulates policy also makes development decisions. I think you might got your wired crossed there. What I said is that effectively there will no change from the present. Simply a change of location for the policy formulating team. Politicians possibly everywhere, but especially in this country, like to hang on to power.
John, there will be changes. At present, policies are made by MEPA and ministerial endorsement is more or less a formality. In the new system being proposed, policies will be made directly by government and MEPA will be consulted as one of the stakeholders albeit the most important one. This, however does not mean that policies will be left to the whim of politicians, as you said. We seem to have lost all sense of proportion if we are comparing this situation to that during the time of Lorry Sant (I don’t think Patrick Holland had anything to do with the issue of building permits).
Contrary to popular misconception, policy-formulation is not the most controversial aspect of development planning and does not represent “power”. The real controversies – and sometimes abuses – occur when policies are not followed. That is why, incidentally, I do not agree with Michael Falzon when he says that MEPA officials should be allowed to go against policies. What’s the use of setting a rule and then authorising officers to break it?
Michael Falzon’s article gives a far too simplistic reason for the problems plaguing MEPA. He absolves the DCC from blame when overturning the case officers’ recommendations simply by stating that the case officers were not allowed leeway and the use of common sense when assessing cases. I do not buy this at all. There have been many cases of DCC approving projects that were very clearly abusive, and if they used the excuse that Michael Falzon is proposing, then I can only conclude that the anomalous situation is tolerated on purpose. There have been DCC members who have benefitted personally from approving controversial projects. Unfortunately, money talks and bribery has always been present. Now, more people can arguably benefit from it. The solution is very elusive indeed.
@john azzopardi
Michael Falzon is spot on in his article.
You argue that there were many abusive permits. I will not argue with that except that I would describe most of them as permits with which I disagree. In a discretionary planning system, it is inevitable that there will be decisions which some people would perceive to be abusive.
The real problem isn’t the “abusive” permits. The real problem is the many hundreds of applications which the MEPA’s case officers forward to the board with a recommended refusal. They interpret policy in a very restrictive manner and shift responsibility of policy interpretation to the DCC Board. It is safer for them, it involves them less hassle and they are less likely to be accused by some environmental crusader of abuse or worse.
Michael Falzon is very correct when he states: “Meanwhile, some people who think they know everything – just because they scratch the surface of what happens at Mepa – started selling the idea that there was something sinister in the DCC overturning negative recommendations. This myth stuck.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090717/local/bahrija-farmhouse-permit-null
“7.8 Membership in a secret society is incompatible with the duties of employees and appointees. “http://www.mepa.org.mt/customercare/documents/DRAFT%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS%20-%20MEPA.pdf
If only item 7.8 were to be taken seriously. How can the ethics committee prove that an appointee is a Freemason, or a member of a society with secrets? Please note that a society with secrets is not a secret society.
Case Officers in MEPA were bogged down by numerous rules and regulations and a zero tolerance policy through which they were refusing to issue permits on the slightest deviation of these requirements.
The DCC on the other hand was reversing these decisions left, right and centre creating a free for all, especially with most members on it (including some chairmen) who were practicing architects in certain cases even representing clients who had been agrieved by the case officers creating a conflict of interest that was unethical.
Enough examples had been given in previous posts and enough people had been mentioned.
The MEPA auditor has now reported that the Bahrija permit was issued against MEPA policies and should never had been issued. The developer had asked for his intervention as well as that of the police.
Now that the permit has been found to have been issued irregularly, who exactly are the people that the police are going to investigate? Please do enlighten me.
Notwithstanding what Michael Falzon has been saying, MEPA was a beehive of irregularities, to put it very mildly, and this required the PM’s immediate intervention.
What I suggest is that the DCC is composed of more than the three suggested persons, the majority of whom should be from the judiciary (there are some very competent retired magistrates and judges around) supported by retired architects non of whom must be in practice, plus the fact that the archaic rules and regulations governing case officers are to be modernised and streamlined for better efficiency, fairness and transparency.
Thing is, one seems to be assuming that politicians by nature are corrupt, and that politicians like Gonzi are the exception. But politicians subject themselves to the electoral vote every five years, while MEPA technocrats don’t. And what if the MEPA technocrats are corrupt? Who will remove them? So, between a corrupt politician and a corrupt technocrat, I prefer the former. The lesser of two evils.
When all is said and done, planning was and still is, and will for ever remain, a responsibility of the government. MEPA is simply an organisation, created by law by means of a simple majority in parliament, which has been delegated the power to issue permits. MEPA can be removed with the stroke of a pen. So, yes, its the government which shoulders the political responsibility for bad planning decisions.
The Nationalists have tried to make us forget that there is such a thing called political responsibility. That is something which elected politicians have to shoulder and they cannot hide behind the excuse that decisions are taken by professional bodies.
Spot on, Albert.