Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Constitutional Development

The People vs the Government of Malta


Paul Gavan (Ireland, UEL) for the people of Malta. In the background Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, for the government. “disappointed by the amendments tabled by the Maltese colleagues… when you are in a hole stop digging!”

Last night, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted overwhelmingly to approve a report on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and the state of the rule of law in Malta. The resolution  listed a series of “serious concerns” over the investigation into the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, and demanded the setting up of an independent public inquiry into her death within three months.

The Assembly also noted that “The rule of law in Malta is seriously undermined by the extreme weakness of its system of checks and balances.”. It called on Malta to urgently implement, in their entirety, reforms recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and its anti-corruption body GRECO, noting that the recent State Advocate bill was “inadequate to reform the office of Attorney General”.

Not many international media outlets carried the result of the resolution in its immediate aftermath. Bar the chatter on Maltese media and on social networks the impression would be that the Malta Government’s damage limitation exercise has worked. Has it? Are we faced with another international institution that has more bark than bite? Will there be any consequences following the resolution? What can we expect?

What can the PACE do for me?

To begin with here is what the PACE consists of:

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is the parliamentary arm of the Council of Europe, a 47-nation international organisation charged dues to their members, dedicated to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Council of Europe is an older and wider circle of nations than the 28-member European Union – it includes, for example, Russia and Turkey among its member states – and oversees the European Court of Human Rights.

Source Wikipedia

It’s larger and older than the European Union structures and it has contributed to the development of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. As one of the French MPs observed in yesterday’s debate, a newly independent Malta was eager to sign up as part of the family of democratic states and became a member of the Council of Europe back in 1965. PACE also elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights from among the three nominees that each state sends. It is not just a talking shop, the resolutions and actions of PACE have direct consequences on democratic development – from election monitoring to rule of law campaigns. Where it differs from the EU parliament is that its decisions can never be binding.

Why bother then? Resolutions of the PACE as well as those of other constituted bodies under the Council of Europe – notably the Venice Commission – carry weight not just within the CoE institutional framework but also beyond. The European Court of Justice has referred to reports by the Venice Commission in its jurisprudence as recently as this week in the Commission v. Poland (ECLI:EU:C:2019:531) case where the ECJ found that the Polish legislation reforming its judiciary to be contrary to EU law.

The investigative work that precedes the report and the reports themselves that are then subject to votes to become resolutions by the PACE have been shown to have a strong probative value in international fora. While these do not have an obligatory nature insofar as the recommendations are concerned, they will still carry much weight in procedures such as the EU rule of law framework.

The Debate in Strasbourg

Yesterday’s debate that preceded the vote on the final resolution on Omtzigt’s report was an eye opener in many ways. We have been used to the nationalistic and protectionist rhetoric that Malta government propaganda uses to distract from the matters at hand. The discourse of “traitors” often crops up in such situations when, as the government would have it, “our linen are hung in public for all to see”. The reality is different of course.

Yesterday’s debate was a look into the deficiencies that have become more and more apparent in the functioning of Maltese democracy. The government of Malta would want this to seem as an attack on the nation. As the narrative goes, Malta is a thriving, successful economic miracle that is now being regarded with jealous eyes by others. The death of a high profile journalist, the narrative continues, is only being used as an expedient by the enemies of the state to undermine its success. Not too strangely this is the same kind of narrative spun by autocratic nations when defending themselves in such fora. Such, as we shall see, was the call of the Azeri spokespersons who went so far as to allege corruption in the CoE.

Objectively speaking though, the concern by the CoE and within the CoE for the democratic and constitutional structures of one of its member states is a concern for democracy, rights and the rule of law. Such values concern directly the citizens of that very state that is under scrutiny. Checks and balances for proper representation, access to rights, absence of corruption are all in there in the interest of the citizen. What the report tries to establish is (a) the existence of the problem and (b) solutions thereto.

Let’s be absolutely clear about this: the “problem” is a problem that will eventually be felt by the Maltese people. The concerns raised at the Council of Europe are raised in the interest of the good of the Maltese people. It is anything but an attack on the people. It is an “intervention” and a call to make sure that the interests of the Maltese people are safeguarded.

With friends like these

So the Government of the Republic had more than one option and approach available to it. It could, as it has done since the first international observations of the Maltese legal framework had begun, spin the counter-attack of denial and counter-propaganda. It could have also stood up, taken note of these concerns and taken immediate action to remedy the problem – in the interest of the very people who have mandated it into power.

That the Government of the Republic chose the first option – a defence of counter-attack and spin – is not surprising given its track record. What needs to be made clear is that by taking this position it placed itself in a diametrically opposite position to that of its people. Yes. The position of defence and denial was a first step in admission of responsibility. By denying the existence of a well-documented problem, by rabidly opposing any notion of backsliding of the rule of law, the Government of the Republic adopted the position of the accused who was responsible for all of this.

This was no longer simply a vote on a report. This became the case of “the People of Malta vs the Government of the Republic”.

That responsibility puts the Government at direct loggerheads with the interests of its people, the very same interests that the CoE through its resolution is intending to safeguard. Any doubts that remained at the start of the debate regarding this assertion would immediately vanish once the debate started.

To begin with the government’s counter-resolution aimed at torpedoeing the process was backed by three states who, let’s just say, are not the first states that come to mind when one thinks of champions of democracy. Azerbaijan, Malta’s eurovision douze points buddy, was accompanied by Viktor Orban’s Hungary and San Marino. San Marino might come as a surprise if you are unaware that the micro-state has been acting as a trojan horse for Putin’s Russia and this in not too covert a manner. With friends like these who needs enemies?

Two weeks before the debate, Manuel Mallia mistakenly messaged the whatsapp group made up of Malta’s CoE representatives urging them to make use of the upcoming Mediterranean Leaders summit in Malta to lobby against the Omtzigt report. The government was desperate to shoot down this message – which goes to show how relevant it really is.

When the debate got going the divide became all the more evident. The bleating by Muscat’s emissaries was echoed only by their Azeri counterparts. A pathetic display of dictatorial rhetoric was echoed across their lines shooting the messenger (Omtzigt) and accusing the Council of Europe of using the death of a journalist for whatever obscure political motives their minds could conjure. The irony of being on the same side as the government of Azerbaijan notoriously illiberal with its press was completely lost on the Malta Government delegation.

The speakers from across the political spectrum were unanimous not only in their support for the report but also in their condemnation of the behaviour of Muscat’s government. From the French to the Icelandic to the British (to the Turkish to the Armenian); they all expressed their dismay about the fact that the wonderful nation of Malta and its beautiful people have been brought to this situation. The powerful phrase uttered by Paul Gavan (UEL) echoed around the walls of the chamber ” when in a hole… stop digging”.

No amount of landslide populist electoral victories would erase this logic. And that is where the irony of it is at this stage. The People who were being defended and advocated for in the hemisphere are still, in their majority, blissfully unaware of the dangers of the erosion of the rule of law. While the omnishambles that is the official opposition fails to direct its resources to this gravest of problems it is left up to civil society and the few advocates for the rule of law to carry the flag to these international fora with the hope that something is done before it is too late.

The recent construction crisis in Malta might have been a first flash into the real consequences of rule of law breakdown. Legislative laxity, poor monitoring, government by lobby and general impunity will eventually have their negative effects and the main sufferers are the people. Unfortunately we might have to wait for more such effects before the people get on board of their own side and stop getting wooed by the empty rhetoric of those who are supposed to be managing the country in their interests.

The case continues…

The case of the People of Malta vs the Government of Malta is not finished yet. The next step is a potential reference by a Maltese court to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case concerning the appointment of the judiciary in Malta. The momentum might be building up for the people to find its voice again. If only the opposition, in the wider sense of the term, would get its act together and unite with one voice. As they have seen there are allies to be found everywhere… the crooks are beginning to be outnumbered.

Categories
Brexit Constitutional Development

Parliament Strikes Back

Order to chaos

Speaker Bercow stood up and made a statement. He did so from his position within an old and respectable institution and what he said was firmly embedded and rooted in tradition. It was not tradition for the sake of tradition but rather the kind of tradition that forms part of an ongoing process of institutional development. The kind of tradition that gives direction, certainty and clarity.

Founding his position on a strong 415-year old rule fortified by precedent Bercow explained to the gathered members of the House that there could be no new meaningful vote unless there is a ‘new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same‘ as the previous ones. Erskine-May, that biblical volume(s) of reference on parliamentary procedure, was never intended to gather cobwebs; rather it was intended to be at the throbbing heart of an institution that has oftentimes been described as “the mother of all parliaments”. Rather than bellowing empty air, Bercow was the metatron – the channel of the divine voice – and in this case the divinity was the rule of the land that holds everything together.

I have often thought that it is a blessing that of all the EU Member States it was the United Kingdom that would go through the test phases of the process of leaving the European Union. As constitutional and representative mechanisms go there could be no better testing ground for the first time enactment of a multi-dimensional constitutional disentanglement to take place. The institutional self-awareness built over centuries of development and precedent should be able to withstand even the worst assault of today’s popular and populistic politicians.

That the ultimate distillation of all that is parliamentary representation would be severely put to test was a scripted inevitability. Once you had a parliament in session that overwhelmingly was against Brexit in principle but that was also tasked to go through the motions of trying to transform “the people’s will” (17 million reminder) into reality then it was clear that there would be a constant struggle to simply understand what the sovereign will ultimately was. I have dealt with one side of this conundrum in the post Unpopular Representation.

Add to this formula the internal party splits, the devolved interests (particularly Scot and Northern Irish) and the macchiavellian manoeuvering that would take place at a national level as well as the understandable negotiating limits with the European Counterparts then you would hope that as much as possible the institutional underpinnings of the process remain such as to guarantee the full purpose and functioning of a parliamentary democracy.

Bercow’s ruling ostensibly defends parliament (mostly backbenchers) from the actions of a “bullying” executive. May’s third attempt at pushing the “meaningful vote” (MV3) can not happen because it would be the third time too many of trying to get her own way by hook or by crook. The symbolic gesture of Bercow’s announcement is much more important than the practical consequences. I say that because there is always a workaround that is possible for May however any workaround that results in forcing the meaningful vote notwithstanding the Speaker’s warning risks taking on the wrong meaning of meaningful.

It is facile to impute motive to Bercow’s ruling. Truth is that the rule existed before Bercow. It has a purpose. In the wider picture we can see it as a safeguard against deception. An executive that attempts to “weaponize” time to force the hand of parliament is suddenly caught with its proverbial pants down. This could in effect be seen as a first step of parliament fighting back after it had lost a motion to wrestle the process from May’s hands earlier last week.

Returning to the issue of delegated and trustee representation we could see this kind of ruling as another pressure valve that sends a clear signal that on this particular issue – and unless some meaningful change is brought through (highly unlikely given the noises coming from Europe) – the matter might be slowly slipping out of the hands of the elected representatives themselves.

If they really want to fulfill their centuries old function of popular representation then they might want to realise that the mother of all parliaments is due a consultation with its people. If only to see whether their original mandate still stands given the new facts and circumstances that have arisen since the last popular vote.

Categories
Constitutional Development

Unpopular Representation

“(An MP) his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. … Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” – Edmund Burke

It’s a quote that’s brought up time and time again. Edmund Burke explaining his model of “trustee representation” as opposed to the idea of “delegated representation“. The question being the nature of an elected members’ duties towards his constituency.

On the one hand the idea of an MP as a trustee means that the electors choose a person who they deem is best suited to work and represent them in their best interests using his judgment in order to determine what those best interests may be. “These ‘trustees’ have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favour of the greater common good and the national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies.”

On the other hand a “delegate” MP would be a mouthpiece of his constituency. “In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency/ state, and have no autonomy from the constituency only the autonomy to vote for the actual representatives of the state. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience.”

What is the role of our elected MPs today in the age of social media and supposed rapid consultation of the constituent’s needs and opinions? Has the development of technology capable of immediate and real-time consultation driven inroads into the notions of representation particularly in parliamentary democracies? Is there still any room for the ‘mature judgment’ and ‘enlightened conscience’ of the Burkean representative?

Not if you went by Italy’s 5 star Movement there isn’t. With the Italian parliament due to take a vote as to whether or not lift the parliamentary immunity accorded to Lega leader Salvini in order to allow magistrates to prosecute him in relation to alleged crimes in the Diciotti case, the M5S – Salvini’s government coalition partner party – decided to consult its grassroots base. Using an online voting platform called Rousseau, members of the movement were asked (admittedly using a convoluted questioning system) whether they believed the vote should go in favour or against Salvini.

Now if we set aside all the vested interests of the populsit party trying to keep its place in government by not prejudicing the coalition we still have a basic issue of delegation vs trustee. In fact the M5S parliamentary members are reduced to automatons who are simply delegated with the duty of voting in parliament in accordance with the outcome of the online vote. As it is, 59% voted to grace Salvini and that 59% will be ‘translated’ into a binding order to all M5S MPs to vote accordingly. Which is in itself strange because strictly speaking the online constituency actually sent a message that around 60% of MP votes should go for saving Salvini while 40% should not. Be that as it may, the parliamentarians occupying M5S seats will not use any discretion or judgment of their own when exercising their vote. Worse still, they cannot for example exercise their discretion and say that a vote lifting immunity would be more in accordance to the mandate and principles upon which they were elected. A tough one that.

In another corner of the EU (at least for now) we have heard the argument of constituencies that have voted for Brexit over and over again. Opposition to the “second vote” has been propped up by the contorted reasoning that “the constituency would view a second vote as a betrayal” especially where the constituency voted for Brexit first time round. The whole Brexit conundrum has in fact thrown the delegate v. trustee debate back to the forefront of discussions on the exercise of parliamentary powers and sovereignty.

On the one hand the delegate option pays lip service to the “Brexit is Brexit” mentality. It serves as an illogical short-cut that somehow believes that an uninformed decision taken once during a “consultation” process somehow bars any future reconsultation once the facts are clearly on the table. It excludes with absolute certainty any notion of trusteeship on the part of the politicians in parliament who are therefore expected to act solely and exclusively on behalf of the 17 million one-time voters and without throwing in any weight of ‘mature judgment’ or ‘unbiased opinion’.

The magnetic/opportunistic attraction of the delegate option is also a lazy way out for the populist politician who rathaer than boldly lead through weighted judgment and analysis for what he could determine to be the common good prefers to rely on the safety of numbers and polls. This has created a tension within the traditional form of representation in parliaments – parties – with the delegate-minded representatives increasingly finding the trustee-oriented colleagues to be irritatingly frustrating.

The recent split within the Labour party is welcome proof that provided there is enough tension the former ties that bound party loyalists together are finally being broken. Macchiavellian manoeuvering aside, there is hope when it is finally understood that party loyalty need not trump loyalty to principles and ideals.When such principles and ideals mean a shift to trustee-oriented politics then it is all the better for the health of a parliamentary democracy that will no longer veer towards badly considered decisions made for and by the masses that lead to nothing but chaos.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Sale of Public Land

It’s 1626. A Dutch merchant has his eye on a peninsula of land in the region of the New World that the local natives (the Munsee/Lenape) called Manna-hatta (which literally means “the place for gathering wood to make the bows”). Place names tend to have this descriptive element in the local language – Żebbuġ. Għasri, Għajnsielem, Marsalforn. It’s the same the world over. Land is land and what it gives to the people who live on it.

According to a letter by Pieter Janszoon Schagen, Peter Minuit and Dutch colonists acquired the Manhattan peninsula on May 24, 1626, from unnamed Native American people, who are believed to have been Canarsee Indians of the Lenape in exchange for traded goods worth 60 guilders,

“The original inhabitants of the area were unfamiliar with the European notions and definitions of ownership rights. For the Indians, water, air and land could not be traded. Such exchanges would also be difficult in practical terms because many groups migrated between their summer and winter quarters. It can be concluded that both parties probably went home with totally different interpretations of the sales agreement.”

It gets interesting because it turns out that Minuit negotiated with the chief of the Canarsees, when it was the Weckquaesgeeks who actually mostly lived on Manhattan. It was an easy deal to obtain. The vendors would get the rights to a piece of land while the sellers… well the sellers had no concept of right to property and in any case they were nomadic people who actually had no real ties with that piece of land… at least not as much as another tribe who was not involved in the transaction.

Public land – land that belongs to the people. It forms part of the core concept of public goods (res publica). In roman law it was the concept of a good publicly held in common by the people. Res publica also refers to public affairs, affairs relating to the management of the common good. When public land is sold or managed, such sale or management is supposed to be transacted in the interest of the people and their common good.

Modern day republics entrust their governments with the management of public good. That is why transactions involving public land should be conducted with the utmost transparency and no amount of excuses of “commerical sensitivity” can hold water. Transparency is but one safeguard. Accountability to parliament, to watchdogs and to EU institutions is another. The sale of public land – when it is really necessary and justified must take place following the best standards that guarantee the public good is the foremost concern.

When the citizens of the nation fail to understand the importance of the monitoring of such processes then they are open to being conned time and time again by the next Peter Minuit. The tribal leaders of today’s demos who take advantage of this ignorance have little care of the consequences of their transactions. The trinkets and guilders of yesteryear have been transformed in the corrupt practices of today.

Oh foolish nation that allows itself to be led by jackals. The situation is desperate, there are crooks everywhere.

“quotus quisque reliquus qui rem publicam vidisset?
Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare…”

(How few were left who had seen the republic!
Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stript of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign…) – Tacitus, Annals (I, 3-4)

Categories
Constitutional Development Rule of Law

Watching justice come undone

Magistrate Charmaine Galea has just decreed her own recusal from the compilation of evidence in the Caruana Galizia murder trial.

“Magistrate Charmaine Galea followed where magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech left off last week and said she would not hear the compilation of evidence against the three accused, on the grounds that Ms Caruana Galizia had mentioned her in blog posts concerning Labour Party appointees to the judiciary.” (Times of Malta)

A few off the cuff facts (for which I thank some colleagues who are more familiar with the ins and outs of the courts) are warranted at this stage. Malta’s current line-up on the Magistrate’s bench has a grand total of 22 Magistrates. The standard for recusal that has just been set by the combined abstentions of Magistrates Dontella Frendo Dimech and Charmaine Galea is quite low. Magistrate Frendo Dimech’s abstention stemmed mainly from a weak level of familiarity with the victim’s sister (they shared a schoolbench) while Magistrate Galea referred to direct criticism that she received from the victim upon her appointment:

“Magistrate Galea has just read out a statement saying Daphne Caruana Galizia had written about her nomination to the bench and linked it to her closeness of the government of the day.” (still the Times Court report)

Now,  that link – the one related to Daphne’s criticism of Labour’s appointment of magistrates – has delivered a severe blow to the list of 22 magistrates. Decimation does not begin to describe it. In fact, writing on the 20th of November 2016, Daphne Caruana Galizia detailed the specifics of government appointments to the Magistrates’ bench:

“This government has made 14 appointments to the bench in three years, 10 of whom are connected directly to the Labour Party. The other four are Judge Giovanni Grixti (formerly a magistrate), Judge Edwin Grima (formerly a magistrate), Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech (formerly at the Attorney-General’s Office), and Magistrate Aaron Bugeja (formerly in private practice).” (Running Commentary, November 20th, 2016).

The rest of the blog post in question develops an argument that implies without any doubt the ‘political’ nature of Labour government appointees through the years. In this context, Magistrate Charmaine Galea’s abstention should not come as a surprise and is actually the more ‘justified’ of the two until now seeing how Magistrate Frendo Dimech was specifically singled out by Daphne (together with another three magistrates) as not having been a political appointee. What does stand out is that by the same reckoning as applied by Magistrate Galea, 9* other appointees to the bench (10 out of the list of 22) qualify for the same reasoning, the same abstention.

We may argue at length whether or not the abstentions are sufficiently justified but that is not the point that I want to make here. The point that comes out clearly from the current debacle is that when Daphne Caruana Galizia, like many others, was pointing out the political nature of appointments to the judiciary back in 2016 (and even before that) she was actually highlighting a deficiency in the system: one that makes it weak and vulnerable. This is the tangible effect of the breaking down of the rule of law. Justice is not being seen to be done, it is being undone bit by bit.

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental building block of a system based on the rule of law. It is a fundamental building block for any liberal democratic society. When the judiciary is treated as yet another domain wherein ‘jobs for the boys (and girls)’ are to be found, it becomes yet another dagger in the back of the proper administration of justice and consequently of the proper running of the state. The merry-go-round of recusals will necessarily go on if the roster by lot will continue to throw up names who feature on that November 20th post. It is inevitable. It is a vicious circle.

The blame is not to fall on the journalist and opinionists who pointed out the deficiencies and bad-will in the nominations. It is to fall on a government that proceeded to turn nominations to the bench into a farce. It is a government that will sit on a case of impeachment of a judge until he retires out of the grasp of justice. It is a government that will wait for the exact amount of years required by the constitution to pass for the appointment of a young, green, lawyer to the post of magistrate because rule by law trumps rule of law any day.

The not so impeached judge happened to be the father of a labour candidate, the young green lawyer happened to be the daughter of the ex-labour deputy leader and current speaker of the house. One other nominee to the bench – Ingrid Zerafa Young – withdrew her nomination after it transpired that her appointment could have breached the Constitution since she was a member of the Employment Commission. It was Dr Zerafa Young, not the government,  who withdrew her nomination.

As you follow the merry-go-round of recusals do not laugh, do not find it funny and most of all do not blame the magistrates in question. Instead remember that this is a direct consequence of the breakdown of the rule of law in this country.

We all know where the blame for that falls squarely.

 

*This post has been edited because the previous version wrongly implied that all the appointees mentioned in the Running Commentary’s posts were magistrates. 4 of those were in fact judges and therefore should not be considered in this particular case.

Categories
Constitutional Development Values

The Empress has no clothes!

 

Eleonora Sartori returns with a guest post concerning the concept of shame and its value in today’s society,

The Empress has no clothes! (Not that she would need much in the Bahamas).

“A sinner comes before you, Cersei of House Lannister. Mother to His Grace, King Tommen, widow of His Grace, King Robert. She has committed the acts of falsehood and fornication. She has confessed her sins, and begged for forgiveness. To demonstrate her repentance, she will cast aside all pride, all artifice, and present herself as the gods made her….”

This is how George R.R. Martin describes the ritual of punishment and penance named “walk of atonement”, used to publicly shame women accused of adultery or prostitution. The confessed sinner has to walk a certain distance stripped of all clothing, exposed to the eyes and jeers of the common people.

Somehow, this brings back the image described in the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, when a woman who has committed adultery is brought unto Jesus since she is meant to be publicly shamed by being stoned. Shame is in fact a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute, the ignominy of being subject to a very degrading condition. However, Jesus unexpectedly answers back: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

“He that is without sin among you”. Another aspect of shame, this time related to the self-awareness of one’s own sins. Shame caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming or impropriety.

Shame is indeed a manifold concept. It is also a very important pillar of humankind, as very well stressed by Professor Gardini in an article published some weeks ago on Sette – Corriere della Sera (Di cosa ti vergogni?).

But first, why am I talking about shame right now?

I felt the urge of sharing these thoughts when yesterday I read about the fact that the wife of your Prime Minister has been nominated Volunteer of the Year. As correctly put in an article published on The Shift, “The issue at stake was not the validity of Michelle Muscat’s contribution to charity which includes a 10-hour swim to raise funds for the charity she chairs, but the lack of institutional sobriety that comes across when organs of the State bestow honours on the immediate family members of high ranking officials” (It’s all about perception my dear).

The lack of institutional sobriety combines with the constant lack of transparence of appointment procedures on a worldwide scale. I’m just too tired of this ambiguous scenario we’re currently living in, where on the one hand, we have Ivanka Trump championing the cause of women empowerment by carrying out a Fashion Diplomacy strategy and on the other hand, we see Time Magazine nominating the members of the successful and long-awaited #MeToo campaign as Person of the Year.

Does no one feel ashamed for this current situation?

Then I remembered the article of Professor Gardini and I understood the core message conveyed by it. We’re no longer used to feel any shame nor to feel ashamed. Yet, I truly believe that restoring this precious feeling could only improve the democratic society in which we ought to be living in the 21st century.

Referring to Cicero in his analysis, Professor Gardini underlines that he who is capable of feeling shame presumes the existence of a superior entity, a so-called “superior thought”, that is able to assess and judge the insufficiency of one’s actions and in front of which one needs therefore to repent and rehabilitate. This superior thought is nothing but a set of values to which abides the community to whom we belong. A set of values respected by the other members of his community, who can judge and criticize you if you go off track.

Therefore, the sense of guilt is not merely private, but has a public dimension too. It’s the core expression of the principle of accountability.

But what about this principle in the digital era?

Professor Gardini correctly points out that nowadays we no longer belong to a community, but we choose virtual groups to which we want to belong. These groups do not form small societies based on confrontation and discussion, but instead exist as virtual projections of one’s imagine of one’s self. I create my group and in that group I am that particular version of myself.

Thus, in my virtual group I can always claim to be constantly right, since I have the right to reject every kind of confrontation and the arrogance not to take into account any potential different opinion. So much for the principle of accountability.

And yet, there is a very simple way to restore the role of shame in our modern society.

It’s every citizen’s duty to reintegrate into their daily routine the perception of shame and shameful actions. As well pointed out by the Background Paper published by SIDA on Accountability, Transparency and the Rule of Law within the Post-2015 Agenda, “the mere process and framework of accountability, transparency and the rule of law is not enough. What comes out of these structures and processes will, in the end, be determined by the social cohesion among people, as well as by the values and the political environment in society. Individuals have responsibilities and powers of their own to change and affect social norms and trends. Formal structures alone can never guarantee decent societies. »

It is you, the people, who have to publicly shame who you think does not abide by your set of values.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” reads Genesis 3:7.