Standing on principle

Although politics is about winning elections, when the pursuit of votes becomes the sole consideration, something essential is lost, writes Albert Buttigieg. Standing on principle may make the road to power harder but selling one’s soul and values is ultimately a Faustian bargain.

Credit: Shutterstock

“Better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.”

Few idioms capture the importance of standing on principle, dignity and courage more powerfully. The message is clear: there are moments when standing by what one believes in matters more than choosing the easier path. Principles are tested not when they are convenient but when defending them comes at a cost.

This is particularly true in politics.

Although politics is about winning elections, when the pursuit of votes becomes the sole consideration, something essential is lost. Power should be won not through a Faustian pact but by inspiring citizens with a vision for a better nation.

For a growing number of discerning citizens, corruption is the antithesis of good governance and an obstacle to building that better nation.

Unfortunately, the Nationalist Party, perhaps to avoid being lambasted as negative, appears to be downplaying the scourge of corruption. It has missed several opportunities to highlight Labour’s track record of sleaze or has responded with lukewarm press statements. In doing so, is it not sending the wrong message, that corruption is normal and acceptable?

Corruption erodes standards, weakens institutions, silences voices and diminishes trust. Like a termite infestation, its damage is often invisible until it becomes structural.

The latest Eurobarometer on corruption (June 2026) found that 87% of Maltese respondents believe corruption is widespread while 66% believe it has increased over the past three years. The report also highlights strong concern about links between politics and business, a concern reinforced by the disturbing allegations emerging from the Yorgen Fenech trial.

Some may argue that governance and corruption issues do not determine election outcomes, pointing to previous campaigns that focused heavily on corruption but failed to alter the electoral result.

Nevertheless, the fact that governance concerns do not always determine election outcomes does not make them any less important, nor does it justify their absence from political debate.

A party presenting itself as a government in waiting should not merely condemn corruption rhetorically. It should offer concrete proposals: stronger conflict-of-interest rules, greater transparency in public procurement and political financing, stronger whistle-blower protection, limits on political-business entanglements, clearer rules on unexplained wealth, greater transparency regarding trusts and consultancies, increased accountability for Planning Authority case officers and stricter “revolving door” policies between public office and private-sector roles.

In this way, corruption can be transformed from a slogan into a programme of government.

Brian Azzopardi’s recent opinion piece, ‘Labour has shaped the terrain. Now the PN must fight on it’ (August 17), contends that the PN cannot afford to make corruption central to its political message and takes me to task for arguing that the party ought to be more assertive on the issue.

In my article, ‘The elephant that both parties ignored’, I wrote:

“By choosing to ignore the corruption issue, the Nationalist Party not only missed an excellent opportunity to hit Labour’s Achilles heel and present itself as a credible alternative to such sleaze but also played into Labour’s narrative: namely, the normalisation of corruption as a way of life and a means of governing.”

According to Azzopardi, such a position risks alienating disaffected Labour voters for whom corruption is not necessarily a decisive issue. In his view, pragmatism requires the party to prioritise electoral gain, secure power and only then attempt to reshape the system from within.

This is essentially a Machiavellian line of reasoning: that principles can be set aside temporarily in the pursuit of power. However, this assumes that, once power is attained, it can somehow be redirected, even if it was acquired by diluting the very standards one claims to defend.

There is a dangerous line between pragmatism in tactics and pragmatism in principles.

If corruption has become so normalised that it must be downplayed to avoid losing votes, then we must ask what kind of political culture we are accepting and promoting. In simple terms: If one cannot beat one’s adversary, should one simply join them?

The answer must be no. The challenge is to raise the bar.

Leadership is not about passively following public sentiment but about shaping it. It means offering a better vision, even when that vision is uncomfortable or politically costly in the short term. The real test of principles is whether they survive when they become costly.

Azzopardi commented that the party cannot afford to lose any votes and that putting corruption at the forefront will discourage PL voters. However, what about a number of PN voters for whom principles come before gloss? Are their votes taken for granted, as they sometimes seem to be by the party?

He even suggested that putting corruption on the agenda is akin to martyrdom. Tell that to Eddie Fenech Adami, who faced a far more difficult political terrain after years of doctrinaire socialism.

A political party must inspire voters to believe in a country that can do better: where merit matters more than connections, institutions are respected, corruption is confronted and social justice is taken seriously.

What is the purpose of winning if it makes one indistinguishable from what one sought to replace?

Power without principles is perilous.

Standing on principle may make the road to power harder but selling one’s soul and values is ultimately a Faustian bargain.

We all know how that story ended.

(This article was published on Times of Malta – 30 August, 2026)