The Labour party has finally found a way to get at Richard Cachia Caruana on something based on fact rather than on the irritation at an unelected person having a purported strong influence on cabinet decisions (pace Franco Debono). The accusation is based on Wikileaks that portray an active RCC (oh the heavy acronym) lobbying with the US for the reactivation of Malta’s Partnership for Peace membership. The buzzphrase on social networks this morning is : “Allura RCC ikbar mill-parlament?”
I’ve always found this fixation with RCC quite a curious one. The man obviously has much clout and his opinions seem (or seemed) to be highly valued within the inner decision making circles of government. That he might not be directly accountable for many a blunder might raise important questions about the structure of our elected elite. On the other hand there is a bit of an emptiness in the grudges that are held against the man. The business of government is one that does not only require elected politicians in their roles of PMs and ministers but also gets done with a caravan of policy advisors (at least we hope so) who come election day risk their position as much as the rest of the ministerial entourage. Feeble as it may be – it does give you an idea of a form of accountability.
Secondly, RCC might be counted among a list of a few intelligent persons upon whom the Gonzi cabinet depended for a long time as a sounding board as well as to prepare future policy objectives. Again the main caveat here is that I do not know the man from Adam except for the rumours within the halls of civil servicery that are not too kind on him insofar as temper and perfectionist tantrums are concerned. Be that as it may I still find the accusations of “unelected mandarin” rather feeble and populistic. After all what do you expect? Governments will lend an ear to whoever they believe are competent advisors – my only grudge here is that all too often it seems that this government depends on one channel of information without really viewing alternatives – but that is another story.
Back to the PfP issue. When the participation in the PfP program was finally reactivated in 2008 it was a cabinet decision. Not parliament mind you – cabinet. Whether the groundwork for this reactivation had been prepared by extra-cabinet members such as RCC is something one would hope for rather than condemn. Switch back to 1996 and consider Sant’s de-activation of PfP membership in the name of “neutrality”. Irrespectively of whether you agree or disagree with Sant’s interpretation of neutrality there is one point that sticks out on that day.
The seat at Castille had barely gotten used to the shape of Sant’s behind yet Sant via his cabinet took a decision to withdraw from the PfP. One could also safely assume (or, again, hope) that Sant was acting on the basis of advice from specialist persons within the field – unelected technocrats who participate in the work of government in order to facilitate its operation.
Is Sant greater than parliament? No. Neither is RCC. Nor is the cabinet. The fact remains that Malta’s original decision to take part in the PfP formed part of a wider EU participation program in an early nineties nationalist government. The withdrawal by Dr Sant was accepted as a legitimate cabinet decision by his government (based on an electoral programme promise) and the re-activation by the subsequent nationalist government was the result of another cabinet decision that itself was based on the fact that the nationalist party had never changed its policy on PfP membership (which is why I believe that it is correct in claiming that it did not need to include the re-activation in subsequent electoral programmes).
Whether RCC as part of the hidden machinery of government lobbied with governments and institutions or not is a probability that is now confirmed by the Wikileaks. We see no wrong in the fact that this occurred since the decision to activate, withdraw or re-activate lies purely within the power of cabinet and in this case RCC would be acting as the humble servant of the latter.
It’s either that or else we can safely say that both the Labour government 1998 and the Nationalist government 2008 acted as though they were above parliament. Which would not be such a great surprise but we’d rather stick to facts than speculation or misinformation.
19 replies on “Cabinet Decisions & RCC’s Head”
Have you suffered a mild concussion by any chance? The motion you refer to is about RCC having by-passed parliament when reactivating PfP. You compare it to Sant deciding to withdraw form PfP in 1996. A couple of small differences. Unlike RCC, Sant was in parliament at the time. Actually he was prime minister. And in case3 you;ve forgotten he had won the election on the understanding that he would freeze EU accession once in government… PfP and all. he was also head of Cabinet. RCC, on the other hand, is not an MP. Technically he is not even a Cabinet member. He occupies that role in an unofficial capacity, only because Eddie said it was Ok everybody simply accepted that without question. But it is not OK. A constituional amendment would be required to make it OK. And that never happened. You are merely buying wholesale into the great EFA (heavy acronym, huh?) mythology, just like so many others…
Oh, and who are the ‘we’ you refer to in your last paragraph? Suffering from tapeworm, are you?
Hmm. Did I miss your shift from punditry to medicine over the past months? They must really be in need of doctors at Mater Dei…. or no that was beds….
I’m feeling quite ok Raphael. Once you get over your worries about the state of my health do consider these following points:
1. the decision to withdraw from PfP in 1998 was taken by Sant & his cabinet – parliament had not even been convened yet
2. the decision to reactivate participation in 2008 was taken by the nationalist cabinet – again this cabinet too was (presumably unless I have suffered a concussion) in parliament
3. the leaks contain information about lobbying by RCC – as far as one can see (without jumping to conclusions) that lobbying was not in his name but in the name of the cabinet
4. the labour motion claims that RCC arrogated to himself a power that is of parliament. he didn’t. at least not in this case. neither Sant nor the Nationalist government of 2008 needed to consult parliament.
RCC is acting as an agent of government and pursuing its interests. Whether you agree with his (and the nationalist government’s) interpretation of the relevant clauses of activation and re-activation is irrelevant to the underlying mechanism. There is no detournement de pouvoir.
My point is that governments will and do use their consulting personnel when lobbying – no big news there. The legal issue relating to the interpretation of membership/participation of PfP is borderline political true – as was the original question raised by Sant when he claimed that it affected neutrality. We could discuss that but it would not change the rules of the underlying mechanism of how governments and lobbies work.
Gonzi today and (who knows?) Muscat tomorrow will continue to rely on technocrats who serve them to achieve the aims of government. Insofar as that point is concerned I see no wrong in RCC lobbying actively in order for cabinet to achieve its aim of reactivating PfP participation.
Concussion or no concussion.
Well, that was a speedy recovery. From we to I in just a few paragraphs… Still, however, you choose to overlook the tiny detail that Sant – whether you like it or not – had a mandate to pull out of PfP. (And in any case, what sense would there be in freezing the EU application but remaining PfP members?)
Oh, and before rushing to cement misconceptions of RCC ‘humbly performing the Cabinet’s bidding’, and all that crap… have you spoken to any Cabinet members about this? I suggest you do. You might be surprised at what you’d hear.
Well Raphael I guess that’s the point isn’t it? I have no doubt that RCC’s modus operandi has ruffled quite a few feathers beyond the obvious case of Franco Debono. That you speak to disgruntled cabinet members or labour politicians eager for anti-government mileage is no doubt part of the journalistic business of collecting all available opinions to better present a rounder picture to the reader (I presume when you are not dispensing medical advice).
Their grudges however do nothing to change the interpretation of facts other than tinge them with bias. The PfP business is full of legal pitfalls – as is quite unelegantly proven by the “re-activation” excuse/interpretation that was finally settled upon in 2008. I have no problems in admitting that qualification.
Equally divisive is the interpretation of “mandates” to withdraw/reactivate. Sant definitely had mentioned it in his electoral program. The nationalist party never accepted the withdrawal and never stated its acceptance in subsequent electoral programs. We could open the discussion whether participation in PfP is crucial for participation in high level EU discussions on security and whether therefore reactivation would also be necessary to enable Malta to fully benefit from its membership of the Union. Again its a matter of opinion on policy.
What I DO see as crucial to the issue at hand is the basic difference between WHO TOOK THE DECISION (Sant or the 2008 cabinet) and WHO WORKED FOR IT TO HAPPEN (RCC in the case of the 2008 decision). At no point does RCC arrogate any powers of government or parliament to himself. He is working as a “humble servant of cabinet” – and yes the humble bit is a provocation.
Yes Sant had a mandate. So, one can argue, did the subsequent nationalist governments. Anyone working for those governments and in their interests would only have been doing their job.
And once we’re at it how does lobbying for Malta’s re-entry into Partnership for Peace “by-pass the country’s sovereignty”?
If “parliamentary procedures” were really bypassed as claimed by the labour motion then weren’t they also bypassed in 1996?
I don’t expect you to reply on the last two questions because obviously you are the journalist here working with an investigative paper and not the labour politician who should be clarifying whatever point he is trying to make via his garbled motion.
Sometimes the end does not justify the means.
Speaking to such people is part of the job, yes. And what you immediately notice about this particular situation (i.e., the RCC/Cabinet relationship… even pre-dating the Wikileaks issue, btw) is how you never hear a single voice within government circles – not even one – sharing your opinion of RCC being a ‘servant of Cabinet’.
“sharing your opinion of RCC being a ‘servant of Cabinet’.”
Again. My opinion is not that RCC is a servant of the Cabinet. In this case mine is an assessment that in doing what he is “accused” of doing – lobbying for PfP reactivation – RCC is acting as a servant of the cabinet (*incidentally it could have easily been anyone else in government employment and not RCC).
Now. The issue of power bases and how the current government is run is completely separate from this assessment of facts in these particular circumstances.
You’d have to be blind not to see the level of disgruntlement at the extent of RCC’s influence on government policy.
It is equally obvious however that this omelette of a motion presented by Luciano and George is simply the latest in a series of traps laid for the Honourable Debono in order to bring him to vote with the labour grouping. There is a patent lack of interest in content (and by that I mean logic that would make the whole thing hold together) – which tends to be labour’s shortfall in the long run: that is why the end does not always justify the means.
Honestly, Jacques, i think you are missing the point. Even if one concedes that there is a comparison between 1996 and 2008 (I personally don’t, but that;s beside the point) it doesn;t change the fact that RCC is dictating government policy to a Cabinet that sheepishly obeys him in all things. Last I looked RCC is neither representative of nor even answerable to anybody or anything. His status as ‘imaginary cabinet member’ is a double-edged sword. When it pays him to do so he assumes the mantle of government lobbyist; but at any point he can turn around and say ‘but I;m not a Cabinet member so i can do what the feck I like.” It;s an unwholesome (and yes, undemocratic) state of affairs, and I am surprised you don;t seem to see it. (Could it be your eyesight? If so, I could always suggest a few medical remedies…)
‘It is equally obvious however that this omelette of a motion presented by Luciano and George is simply the latest in a series of traps laid for the Honourable Debono in order to bring him to vote with the labour grouping.’
If we were playing that silly childhood hide-and-seek style game (can’t remember what it was called) I’d say you were ‘getting warm’…
In fact I think would a good deal more accurate to describe the situation as ‘Cabinet humbly doing RCC’s bidding’…
By the way… what’s with the space invader icons?
They’re avatars automatically assigned to people who comment. You seem to be stuck with the one that looks like a pixellated version of the rear end of a
morris marinatrabant.Just checkiong my avatar. :)
Just checking my avatar. :)
Ooh! Pink!
damn it, i prefer ganni’s avatar. Snot fair!
Ganni yours is purple not pink!
…im just checking mine
Jacques, im not going to ask you your opinion on the colour of Ganni’s icon. The colour of those boots is still imprinted in my head! (they’re grey! No, they’re green!…..) remember?
Yes I remember. They were green. :)
Is everyone going to check out his avatar now?