Graduation Ceremony 2
Graduand’s Address
Friday 19 November 2010 at 1630hrs
JESUITS’ CHURCH – VALLETTA
Mark Anthony Harwood
Ph.D. graduand and representative of the students
Hon Minister, Chancellor, Rector, Distinguished Guests, members of the Academic
Body, fellow Graduates, ladies and gentlemen.
While it is an honour to address you today, as the only graduate not from the Faculty of
Law, I feel substantially out numbered. However, I believe we are all united in a
collective desire that any speech should be as short as possible, so I shall try and be brief.
In scratching my head to structure this speech I was faced with the difficulty of trying to
marry reference to my areas of academic research, namely European studies and public
administration, with that of the majority of you, namely law. But events have made that
association easier as we remember, this year, the passing of a significant figure in Malta’s
road to EU membership as well as a stalwart of the law course, namely Professor Guido
de Marco.
In his book, the Politics of Persuasion, Professor de Marco touches on the significant
moments in his life which were often, also, important moments in modern Maltese
history, including the post-war rehabilitation of the Nationalist Party, independence, the
political instability of the early 1980s and Malta’s application to join the EU as well as
more personal reflections which illustrate the fact that while we can aim high and achieve
much in our chosen careers, it is the love shared with family and friends which
constitutes the most precious memories when we come to remember.
Rather poignantly, in speaking of the inauguration of university in 1948 as well as the
pride felt on his graduation day in November 1955, he recounts the very walk from the
(old) university building to this church which we ourselves have just taken. Many
thousands of graduates have passed through this church and the Faculty of Laws since
then and some have gone on to attain the highest offices our political system can offer,
becoming prime ministers and presidents and, more recently European Commissioners.
Some have even defied the cynical jokes we make about lawyers and used their degrees
for the greater good of our community, people such as Dr Katrine Camilleri of the Jesuit
Refugee Service, and they deserve equal admiration and respect. They remind us that
there are no limits to our ambition and that university is not an end in itself but a moment
in our development which may see some of us return again for further study because to
stop learning is to stop living or, as Cardinal Newman himself noted, to live is to change,
and to be perfect is to change often.
And now let me turn to my own area of academic interest. In a varied career, both in
Maltese politics and at the UN, it can be argued that Professor de Marco’s lasting legacy
is his contribution to helping secure EU membership for Malta. EU membership involves
participation in a political, economic and legal system centred on Brussels and that
participation brings about change in the very member states which voluntarily choose to
join the Union. This domestic change process related to EU membership is often labelled
Europeanization. In my doctoral research I undertook an analysis of how membership has
changed the Maltese public administration, in particular its structures, the role of actors
and the types of policy dealt with by the Maltese government.
My research showed that EU membership has been used to further centralise Maltese
decision making, making us, as the British deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said some
months ago, the most highly centralised state in the EU. That statement led to a chorus of
disapproval but, I suspect, not because it was false but because it touched upon the truth
too closely. That centralisation has created a super ministry at the heart of Malta’s
political system, namely the Office of the Prime Minister and given it powers of
patronage that it has rarely had, primarily through the PPCD. In addition to creating
structural changes, membership has impacted the range of policy dealt with by
government, seen a greater regulatory emphasis in policy output and increased the scope
of non-governmental actors to influence policy implementation through their access to
EU actors which now monitor the domestic implementation of EU law.
But what of the public service? As highlighted by Professor de Marco in his book,
political parties have often viewed public servants with mistrust. In the aftermath of the
elections of 1987 Guido de Marco even provides the number of police officers, ‘not more
than 100’, with Nationalists sympathies, leaving 900 whose loyalties lay elsewhere. That
distrust of public servants with opposing political views is compounded by the long
periods in office enjoyed by both political parties since independence with the result that
a sizeable intake and numerous senior appointments are made within the public service
during a single government’s term in office. EU membership has placed a heavy burden
on the Maltese public administration, both the political elite calling the shots and more
especially the public servants implementing their decisions. In reacting to Commission
proposals, in participating in comitology meetings, in attending Council working groups,
in ensuring the transposition of directives, in providing feedback to Commission auditors
and technical missions, in answering the queries of a warren of EU institutions and
agencies, much of this burden is borne by public servants, often over worked, under paid
and under appreciated.
This is an unfortunate consequence of membership. As stated by one senior official I
interviewed, membership has meant greater involvement for the public service in politics
but no greater power, no definable benefit. Other actors who knew what they wanted used
the flux created around membership to gather power around them. In this way, the OPM,
and to a lesser extent, Finance, gained more responsibility after 2004 while several
individuals became empowered through their coordination role in EU affairs, helped in
no small part by the logic of the argument that it is better to have a highly centralised
system for the coordination of EU affairs to off-set the country’s administrative
limitations. The fact that the public service gained a burden and no real power reflects
badly on the public service and may reflect a fragmentary nature which is no longer able
to articulate a collective interest or one which has become overwhelmed by its
subordinate status in its dealings with political elites.
Malta needs a more unified public service, unified in objectives and collective identity. It
must better use the constructive office of our university’s academics in this area,
especially the Institute for Public Administration and Management, to help consolidate
that service. Too much of our coordination system for EU affairs relies on actors who
will leave when government changes and the EU is too complex a political system to
reconstruct coordination systems every time government changes. For Malta’s long term
success in the EU we need more mature government where the political parties draw a
line under partisanship in the organisational structures overseeing EU affairs and the
public service must place itself in a position where it can provide continuity in those
organisational structures through a greater sense of self.
In concluding I am reminded of two important lessons which can be drawn from Guido
de Marco’s reflections on Malta’s road to EU membership. Firstly, in outlining our
difficult road to membership he indicates that Malta’s quest was made easier with the
help of Malta’s friends, primarily the UK and Italy. All difficult journeys are made more
bearable by not having to travel alone and we must thank those of you here today who
love and support us. I have lost count of the dissertations I have corrected which thank
the family pet, the aunts and uncles, the brothers and sisters and most especially parents
and partners who endure panic attacks and moody silences during the years of study. This
day is as much yours as it is ours and we thank you for not divorcing us (Parliament
permitting) or disowning us.
Secondly, I am reminded of his appraisal of the journey to membership which he said
was about ‘perseverance, insistence and consistency’. I sometimes believe that the
greatest achievement on graduation day is that one has persevered, been consistent,
insisted, often with oneself, not to give up. For most of us, today is the culmination of
many years of study. We will have lost loved ones, endured heartache, seen friends come
and go, endured moments of self doubt as well as wasted countless hours circling the
university ring road looking for a parking space. But we endured, we persevered and
stand here ready to graduate and that is an achievement in itself.
Malta has changed significantly since 2004. This shows that membership was not an end
in itself just as this graduation day is not an end to our lives as students but merely a
moment in our individual journeys. I wish to conclude with the final words from another
political memoir published recently, that of the former British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair. On leaving office he said ‘I felt there was unfinished business; but then I consoled
myself with the thought that the business is never finished ... I have come a long way on
the journey, but I am painfully aware I have much further to go ... There is so much
frailty still to overcome, but in overcoming it lies the meaning of life’. I wish you all
fruitful, happy and long journeys.