Standards in public life
The magistrate parties with the Labour Party ex-mayor
The hoopla surrounding the behaviour of one magistrate and the politician-cum-controversial-architect with whom she lives has brought to the fore the role of the media in policing the excesses of those who hold public office and those who aspire to it.
These two people, and a great many members of the public with confused ideas about the differentiation between public and private, might now have learned the hard way that when one holds public office or seeks to hold it, the border between public and private disappears.
I make a point of adding that this applies only to those who are accountable to the public, because they are paid by the public, and not to other public persons whose salary does not come out of the state coffers.
The fact that one writes a political and polemical newspaper column, for example, as I do, or hosts a television show, as others do, does not mean that one gives up the right to privacy.
The public does not have the right to know what occurs in my private life or the private life of a television newscaster.
But the public most certainly does have the right to know when the private lives of politicians and of public officers are of the nature that may call their public role into doubt.
Let me get this straight. This is not about sex and it is certainly not about marital breakdown. Marriages break down all the time and magistrates and politicians are no exception to what is, beyond dispute, a personal tragedy and a profound shock to the system.
I think it is wrong to discuss in the media the marital difficulties of public officers, of magistrates and politicians. The situation is painful enough as it is without having to live through it in the public eye. I believe any such discussion to be vile, prurient and pointless, and there is no ‘right to know’ argument in favour of it.
The public does not have the right to know that Magistrate X has left his wife, or that Politician Y had an argument with her husband. It is quite simply no one’s business except that of the couple, or ex couple, involved.
The public’s right to know comes into play only when the personal conduct of these people is such that it brings their public role into dispute, ridicule, contempt or contention, and when there are suspicions of wrong-doing, rule-breaking or corruption.
The ‘right to know’ argument also applies to the public officer’s or politician’s view of marriage, rather than to his or her actual marriage, when the person in question is in a position to take decisions or make policy which affects one marriage or marriage in general.
It is quite possible, for instance, to be in the throes of a broken marriage while still holding the institution of marriage in the highest regard. You respect marriage; it is not your fault that yours has broken down. And even if it is your fault, you still have respect for marriage in and of itself.
But then, if you treat your marriage cavalierly because you don’t think much of marriage itself, that is something different. The public has the right to know that this is your opinion, if you are in a position to take decisions or make policies which impinge on marriage.
This is precisely why Alfred Sant’s opinion that he does not believe in marriage, which is recorded in the official documents pertaining to the annulment of his own, was so very relevant when it became public in his brief tenure as prime minister.
There was talk of a divorce law. If he pushed a divorce law through, it could have been seen as a personal interest. If he did not push it through, given his own view, he would have been seen as hypocritical.
That might be one reason why he ended up doing nothing about it, because his own views about marriage would have ended up being widely discussed.
I rush to point out that despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, I was not the one who brought that document from Sant’s annulment proceedings to light or wrote the front page news story about it. My editor at the time will attest to that.
Until today, I remain clueless as to the identity of the person who sourced the document and the person who wrote about it. And I still believe it was an important news item and information covered by the principle of the public’s right to know.
The story was as much of a surprise to me as it was to everyone else, though the then prime minister’s opinion about the institution of marriage was not news to me at all.
I did, however, write an opinion column about it, given that it was the main talking-point of the week.
The Labour Party had objected on the grounds that this was prying into the marital privacy of its leader. This was quite obviously not the case at all.
The news was not that the prime minister’s marriage had been annulled, for that was a matter widely known and acknowledged, and nobody was going to give him a hard time over that. So no, the news was that the prime minister did not believe in marriage as an institution or a way of life.
This was his choice and his opinion, but when you are the prime minister and chief legislator, your opinion about something as fundamental as marriage becomes of public relevance.
Now, nobody cares what Alfred Sant thinks about marriage because his opinions are no longer relevant. But when he was prime minister, when he was leader of the opposition, his opinions were of the utmost importance.
Public officers and politicians are free to find new relationships after their marriages break down. That is not the point at issue here. There are several such persons who conduct their subsequent relationships with dignity and who win the respect of others rather than drawing their contempt and ridicule or worse, suspicion.
It is when their private life starts to come across as seedy or suspect, as being too much involved with unsavoury elements, too much mixing of the wrong sort of business and pleasure, that the personal – as opposed to private – lives of public officers and politicians should be thrown wide open to public scrutiny.
If the situation is allowed to run and run, then the public officers and politicians involved begin to feel that they have some sort of immunity from the public gaze and that they are and should not be answerable to anyone.
Boundaries are pushed further, behaviour becomes more and more extreme and increasingly reckless, the tribute of a necklace worth a few thousands becomes a nudge and a wink over a land development contract, parties for friends expand before long into parties for a network that mixes the shadier elements of business and society, and before you know it, these public officers and politicians find themselves at the centre of a demimonde which lays them wide open to corruption, crime and the bending of rules.
It is what happened to Noel Arrigo, who should have served as a salutary example but didn’t. The irony is that Arrigo went down for a fraction of what certain other persons are up to, because his position was the highest and he was stupid enough to take a bribe directly rather than having suppliers pay for the catering at his parties or expensive jewellery sent to his door, or cuts on major development deals.
Some public officers and politicians make the mistake of thinking that because society has changed irredeemably over the last few years, with thousands of people ‘living in sin’, to use the old-fashioned term, a third of babies born out of wedlock, rampant use of cocaine, and a nihilistic take on life, then public tolerance for similar behaviour on their part has increased.
The opposite is true.
When standards of behaviour plummet among the public in general, then the public’s tolerance threshold for similar behaviour among politicians and public officers plummets with it.
The reverse is also true. When standards of behaviour are high in society at large, the public’s tolerance threshold for bad behaviour among its leaders is high too.
Put simply, when the public is behaving badly, it wants its politicians and public officers to behave well. And when the public is beset by social strictures, and is forced to behave itself, then its tolerance for bad behaviour by politicians is high.
Malta had two rampantly and publicly adulterous prime ministers within living memory, when society was very rigid about such things and separated or adulterous people were pariahs, and yet nobody really cared that much or made an issue of it.
It was not thought to be relevant. It would be impossible, today, for a prime minister to be adulterous, still less publicly so and taking his girlfriend to parties, even though so many electors are and do so.
The basic message is that the worse people behave, the better they want their leaders to be. They don’t want their leaders to be as they are.
They want to look up to them for being straight (and I don’t mean sexual inclination here) and correct. They don’t want politicians and public officers who play the field, sleep around or party. It makes them nervous. They find it offensive. They wonder what will happen next.
Why? Because they have been there themselves, and they know. They don’t want their leaders to be the same.
This is the mistake that Joseph Muscat makes in his confused view of what constitutes progressive behaviour. Even if their politicians can’t do it for them, electors are quite able to distinguish between liberal politics and a debauched attitude to life. The two have nothing to do with each other.
By packing his new movement of progressives and moderates with people whose only common factor is a messy private life and a complete disregard for standards of behaviour or for sticking with your spouse come hell or high water, unless the situation becomes truly impossible, he is sending out the wrong message.
He fails to understand that in the public eye, and with good reason, there is a strong correlation between private debauchery and public corruption.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
35 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I think that this must rank as one of your best pieces that I have read. Well done!
Referring to the paragraph of ‘two adulterous prime ministers” I beg to differ, because in the case of one of them in the 1960s the whereabouts of his wife were reported in the MLP satirical newspaper Ix-Xewka. This was the Labour’s Party attitude though that matter concerned only private family affairs.
This unsavoury saga of conduct unbecoming among public officials should serve as a lesson to all and sundry; but most expecially to people in the public domain, that we all have to shoulder responsibily for our actions. If this lesson is not taken seriously than all the anguish,and unfortunately, bad blood that ensued, have serve no purpose. In this connection, let me quote from the penultimate paragraph of the Apocalypse of St. John ” …he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is just, let him be just still; and he who is holy let him be hallowed still.Behold, I come quickly! and my reward is with me, to render to each one according to his works”
Praise God
There is only one thing I like to point out. It has to be emphasised that what you wrote about applies all the more significantly to the judiciary because with politicians there is some kind of check. They can always be voted out after five years while with the judiciary it is more difficult. Also, the judiciary has much more impact on the everyday lives of people since they are continuously judging the wrongdoing or otherwise of many. I am sure you will explain it better than I did.
Pre/post 1971 election George Borg Olivier was targeted by MLP due to his marital difficulties. I remember they even paraded a bull on a truck as part of the MLP election victory celebrations. Of course this was very much pre – internet and blogs for which we are so truly thankful!
Ha nghidlek x’konna nkantaw:
LE , LE, LE ‘l Gorg il-barri ma’ rriduhx
Assasin tal-Maltin!
Mur ghidilna li Mintoff kellu diga ritratti ma’ wahda topless li ma’ kinetx martu.
quote: “The fact that one writes a political and polemical newspaper column, for example, as I do, or hosts a television show, as others do, does not mean that one gives up the right to privacy”.
Daphne, I must admit that I have a problem with above statement. My problem leads me to ask you why your good self then decided to tarnish Charlon Gouder’s privacy?
Of course, I stand to be corrected.
[Daphne – Charlon Gouder is a politician, not a journalist.]
Great commentary D – congrats. I am sure you voiced the feelings of the many.
Very well said Daphne.
“By packing his new movement of progressives and moderates with people whose only common factor is a messy private life”
A very sweeping statement … can you corroborate/specify in more detail?
I’d say that approximately half the electorate, the pro-Labour half that is, couldn’t give a toss about the correlation between private debauchery and public corruption. All they want is power. The power to once again implement their state-within-a-state where supporters ‘jixxalaw’ and anyone else begs in the gutter.
Ask anti-divorce Marlene Pullicino how she feels about having a twice-divorced, couldn’t-give-a-damn Marisa Micallef as the personal adviser to the chief and she what she says. ‘We’re progressive’ probably. Ha ha ha.
Quote 1: “I make a point of adding that this applies only to those who are accountable to the public, because they are paid by the public, and not to other public persons whose salary does not come out of the state coffers.”
Quote 2: “The public’s right to know comes into play only when the personal conduct of these people is such that it brings their public role into dispute, ridicule, contempt or contention, and when there are suspicions of wrong-doing, rule-breaking or corruption”
You made a distinction between public and private on account of us being a democratic country were the institutions purport to represent the citizens equally and I agree. Then you went on to make a distinction about when the public has a right to know the private details and that’s were I strongly disagree. *Anybody who is trying to influence public opinion or profit from public resources should be up for scrutiny according to quote 2.*
We should raise the bar of accountability not lower it. That said I’m not too much impressed with the media in general, you have to sift through a lot of garbage to peak a poke at what’s really going on…
“There but for the grace of God go I ” – well written and congrats!
Dear Daphne,
Great article! Well put and well explained.
Thank you.
Well said.
Tell us what you know!.I think the whistle blower act would come helpful here!
“It is what happened to Noel Arrigo, who should have served as a salutary example but didn’t. The irony is that Arrigo went down for a fraction of what certain other persons are up to, because his position was the highest and he was stupid enough to take a bribe directly rather than having suppliers pay for the catering at his parties or expensive jewellery sent to his door, or cuts on major development deals.”
Daphne,
Naqbel ma dak kollu li qed tghid, biss xorta nemmen li int “public figure” u n-nies kurjuzi u jiehdu pjacir jkunu jafu l-hazin ta’ kullhadd. Ara x’qed jigri fil-kaz tal-footballer John Terry fl-Ingilterra.
I was trying to send this over yesterday but the server wasn’t serving. Anyways; John Terry is the captain of his country’s national football team. He is accountable to several parties, including the English FA, his manager, his teammates and the English sporting public. If these parties don’t have a problem with him fine, but I think they have a right to know.
For me it boils down to accountability to those who you represent and provide you with some or all of your income – in the magistrate’s case, us taxpayers. There’s the question of ethics; is Daphne ethically correct in reporting things the way she does? She will argue that it’s her blog and her choice, and if someone is annoyed they’re free to take her to court (as long as it’s not a particular magistrate). Not everyone will agree with this line of thinking. But whatever its shortcomings, I prefer it to a don’t see-don’t hear-don’t speak society or a zombie-like life in a totalitarian state.
Hi Daphne.. as much as I admire your bulldog like approach towards issues which you feel the public should know about, I am now growing somewhat tired of hearing the same broken record. When you started this whole Cons thing I thought it was hilarious,”mosta bacon” was a true touch of class. However it did get old for me after a couple of posts… I feel that someone with your writing ability, balls of steel and determination could really play an important role in Maltese society today. But, you REALLY need leave Labour and other petty stories to the side to do this. Yes, we all know you hate labour… but is it possible that you have nothing to say about other current affairs? Just take the bus drivers for example… they ripped me off throughout my childhood… and now they stand to earn more cash (relatively speaking) than I can make with my university degree… come on.. its like taking candy from a child… qas jkunu jafu xlaqathom. Do you understand what I’m saying? Pick on other people… its funny AND it works! Forget the independent.. forget print.. this is the future… blogs which feature news.. current affairs and all this new media.. with people actively participating in discussions… xi trid? nispiccaw bhat Times jew? All they do is print 80-something pages of press releases.. they have no idea jahasra .
anyway.. I hope you get the chance to read this. I think this blog is a great idea.. you just need to start pissing off the right people!!
ps. i dont expect (or want) you to post this message.. would be great to hear what you think tho
This country will only start to move forward when you and other journalists/columnists like you start to make it a point to investigate/comment about everyone and everybody rather than limiting yourselves to one particular group of people. If you love Malta you should make this your mission in life.
p.s. a possible starting point could be the other people you mentioned when talking about Noel Arrigo.
A good columnist is a columnist not a socio-political reformer with a mission. They simply write about whatever strikes them from time to time and we shouldn’t expect them to preach and teach.
I think that this article ranks among one of your very best. It is a must read for those in public life or aspiring to run for public office.
Well said.
I cannot understand how certain people here and on other online fora believe that this is something we should move on from. This involves the judiciary which is that pillar of a democracy that people need to have near to blind faith in, and which people have limited direct access to control as they do with other institutions.
Joseph Micallef:
That is because they do not understand, choose not to understand, or deliberately and wilfully ignore the implications of the magistrate’s inadvisable behaviour, naively claiming that what she does in her “private” life – albeit a much self-publicised one – has no bearing at all on how her actions and decisions in court are perceived.
Well said and well done. After all they are being paid out of our money, our taxes. Keep up the good work.
Well said, Daphne. After all the judiciary are paid from our taxes, and even if they are not, they have to set an example.
This is perfect Daphne. Maybe you should replace Marisa as Joseph’s consultant….then we would have a better Malta!
So let me make this clear, if I told you that a PN politician is having an affair right now, he is well respected (as he plays the saint), is paid by the tax payers money, would you publish it like you did with Consuelo? No matter who is is? I really would love to know.
[Daphne – Consuelo’s shag is a PN politician. Or hadn’t you registered that fact?]
Amen – couldn’t agree with you more – this is one of your very best, Daphne – keep it up!
Whether one likes it or not, scrutiny of public figures, whether paid from public coffers or otherwise, becomes a fact of life. Public figures, to a lesser or greater degree, tend to command public influence or influence other people’s lives.
By being a public figure, one is exposing oneself to exposure and exposure has both its benefits and pitfalls.
It is important for a private citizen to be aware of what motivates the message of a public figure as it may have a positive or adverse influence on his or her life.
By chosing to be a public figure, one is partly relinquishing the right to privacy. Its the name of the game irrespective of what is legally or morally correct.
Once again prosit. So in the real democratic, liberal “unsaintly” world, sportsmen and others resign when caught behaving badly but in Catholic holy Malta people in influential jobs hold on for dear life to their office as if they are whiter then snow! How’s that for VALUES.
Daphne from the first time I saw you in a public forum (if I am not mistaken it must have been 1989), I immediately realised that you had a lot of talent to offer but time proved me wrong as I became very disappointed through the years. Not because your capability in putting pen to paper diminished. On the contrary it improved by time. Unfortunately you fail to use it properly. Rather than approaching different subjects in a just and ethical way, you choose to tint your writing with vulgarities and a sweet dose of hatred. Only you know why!
Having just read the above piece on the eve of Valentine’s day, it smells like roses when compared to all the trash you write about Tom, Dick or Harry (irrespective of whether they are in public life or not!).
Should you adopt this style of writing (which you are very capable of) I am sure that your following would increase ten fold and the feedback – as is evidently clear when reading the above comments – would be much more constructive than the pathetic remarks of your regular followers.
I have nothing against the fetching of skeletons from old cupboards and exposing them for all to see as long as there are no hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
Perhaps you feel comforted by the saying that “The pen is mightier than the sword” but always remember that “blood is thicker than water”!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100214/religion/unguilded-silence
Bravo, padre! DCG’s point exactly.
Amongst many others, the cherry on the cake that clinched it in my eyes was Magistarte Scerri Herrera presiding over her boyfriend’s brother’s criminal case. Shameful, unethical, immoral, and a TOTAL disregard for the basic distinction of what is right and what is WRONG.
A note for the Commission for the Adminstration of Justice -HURRY up with your investigations. Have you sent police officers to the magistrate’s house at 1.30am? This matter is FAR more serious … or isn’t it in your eyes?
prosit Daphne, a pleasure to read.