The hippopotamus phase of corruption

The corruption of a free society is a multi-phase event, and the hippopotamus phase enters late. 

In evaluating the significance of the exchange in Parliament this week between Claudette Buttigieg (PN) and Social Policy Minister Michael Falzon, it pays to know something about the distinctiveness of the hippopotamus phase.

In the early phases of the corruption of a free society, corruption is only occasional. Disgrace is attached to those who are caught. Corruption is an anomaly. The system is robust. It has different authorities checking up on each other. 

The law and the rules are impartial. They enjoin strict lines of separation between holders of public office and the realms of partisan politics and commerce. Without those lines, the claim of impartiality is tarnished. Anyone breaking the rules — no matter who they are — is punished. The principle of equality under the law is sacred.

In a system which isn’t functioning properly, corruption becomes pervasive, but it is still denounced by everyone. The rules may be broken more easily by some, but the principle of impartiality is still considered sacred. 

Hypocrisy is rife because people in power don’t practise what they preach. But, at least, they do preach it. Hypocrisy — as La Rochefoucauld put it — is the compliment that vice pays to virtue.

Something is lost when the air of hypocrisy gives way to an ethos of cleverness. At this stage, vice no longer publicly recognises the legitimacy of virtue. On the contrary, corruption itself begins to seem clever, and virtue, foolish.

The rules stop being the framework of the game. They become one of the counters of the game. The rule of law has given way to the law manipulated by rulers. It’s still dangerous to be caught, but the attitude is one of “Catch me if you can!” Whereas previously the system was designed to minimise corruption, now it’s designed to minimise transparency.

We’re still not in the hippopotamus phase. Before that happens, the widespread corruption of the intellect of the honest must take place. Corruption corrodes everything — even the yardstick of those who oppose corruption. 

There’s a point where the personalisation of power has become so normalised, that even some anti-corruption activists begin to accept its assumptions. When Ian Borg was moved from the ministry of transport to foreign affairs, many commentators remarked matter-of-factly that this was a demotion. It’s an assessment that would astonish virtually every other Western European commentator. 

The foreign affairs post enjoys the highest prestige elsewhere. The normal trajectory of a successful career is to move towards it. Of course, the prestige is based on the assumption that the crowning value is selfless public service. 

If, however, the crowning value is the ability to personalise power, then the command of a massive budget — where a minister can exercise huge discretionary influence on direct orders — is the most important sign of prestige. 

The critics of Ian Borg, in taking for granted that one’s prestige as a minister depends on his or her ability to personalise his power, ended up making the system seem ‘natural’. And the more such a system (called patrimonialism) seems natural, the more difficult it is to imagine alternatives to the swamp. 

It is now that we come to the hippopotamus phase. The swamp no longer seems alien and repellent. It’s a home environment, like the mangrove swamp for the hippopotamus. It’s not something to be avoided. It’s a natural habitat to swim in and enjoy. 

Democrats take to rule of law like a duck to water; a society based on the law of rulers takes to corruption like a hippopotamus to a swamp. 

Corruption isn’t just normalised. It’s naturalised. It doesn’t just govern calculations. It shapes our feelings. 

When corruption enters the hippopotamus phase, it doesn’t even seem like corruption anymore. On the contrary, denouncing it seems an affront to proper values. It’s those who denounce corruption who are condemned for their immorality in attacking honest people. They are accused of anger driven by malice, not injustice. 

And now, we’re in a position to consider the skirmish between Falzon and Buttigieg. 

She asked Falzon if he was aware that a director in the public service, who fell under his ministry, took leave to participate in a certain minister’s re-election campaign, including in home visits. What did Falzon make of this?

Buttigieg did not publicly name either the minister or the director. Her point was not personal. It was about the conflict of interest in a public servant, bound to be impartial, acting in a partisan capacity. 

In his reply, Falzon first rejected any impropriety because, he said, the director had always conducted her work well. Then he mentioned something Buttigieg had not — that the director was the live-in partner of the minister she had campaigned for.

Finally, he denounced the question. It insisted on a high public ethical standard — on observance of the rules governing senior civil servants — but Falzon called the question a personal attack, that is, immoral and vicious. 

In fact, Buttigieg had pulled her punches. The director in question hadn’t just embarked on home visits. She had spoken at a public campaign event on behalf of the minister. She endorsed him in a film clip that he, himself, openly uploaded on Facebook. She took selfies with him at Labour mass meetings, which he also openly uploaded, for all the world as though there was nothing wrong with it. 

So Falzon’s answer wasn’t a personal slip-up. It reflects a collective idea of government. In fact, that answer was written for him — by, presumably, another public servant. The other minister himself didn’t see anything wrong in uploading the photos, which he presented as signalling the virtues of companionship and fellow feeling. It was all out in the open. 

You could interpret all these attitudes as symptoms of cynical cleverness: a way to avoid answering an uncomfortable question, a “catch me if you can!” attitude, a smearing of opponents. 

But another interpretation is possible — that we are witnessing the hippopotamus phase at first hand, where to question the personalisation of power is to be vicious. Where to criticise this use of power is, therefore, to launch a personal attack. 

If we are squarely within the hippopotamus phase of the degradation of our political system into a patrimonial one, then liberal democrats face a deeper problem than the one of cynicism. They need to persuade an electoral majority that a well-functioning liberal democracy is legitimate.


Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 month ago

What a wonderful synopsis of why Malta is in the mess it finds itself on the international stage.
When the government is full of appointed self serving megalomaniacs who are also devoid of any sense of responsibility of the requirements needed to be a public servant you have the ingredients for the perfect storm.

That perfect storm is now raging in Malta and we can only hope the international agencies will be sending help soon to clear up the debris before the total destruction of the country is completed.

saviour mamo
saviour mamo
1 month ago

Robert Abela seems helpless to do something about the level of corruption in this country. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index Malta takes the eight place out of thirteen countries. What can he do when he is himself embroiled in deals with criminals.

1 month ago
Reply to  saviour mamo

Robert Abela is not helpless!

He and he alone as P.M. has the overall responsibility for ensuring the rule of law is upheld but he will not, rather than cannot, do the right thing when he, as you so rightly point out, is embroiled and complicit in the corruption which pervades every strata of government, its ministries and its ”proper authorities” and those in a position at the top of those branches are likewise complicit to ensure that justice is quashed before the ” untouchables” are charged.

Google an article on from May 21st about lawyer Cat MacLean to see how a principled lawyer – remembering that our P.M. is a lawyer- reacts when her position is compromised and draw your own conclusions why Malta is and will remain a basket case.

1 month ago

They claim that those who expose their misdeeds shame Malta in the world.

In fact, there were some who believed this bullshit in the beginning, but they are now more than astonished and know that the other way around make sense.

Too many pieces of the puzzle of the game of lies simply do not fit. 
The time to dispose of the puzzle game is approaching.

Let us start with the smelling and speakless wannabe dictator who runs away from the press like a chicken.

1 month ago
Reply to  KLAUS

Is the FATF aware of our corrupt government where bob excels in grifting . No wonder he closes his eyes to corruption as more than 80% of his comrades are corrupt starting from the ex-prime minister (of whom he was a consultant) who had been selected as the 2019 person of the year in organized crime.

When will the past scandals be brought to light or now everything will be swept under the carpet?

1 month ago


1 month ago

Crime and personality disorders

Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons.
Some people’s DNA could be devolving and sequencing the metaphorical ‘hippopotamus genome’

Others are having to evolve and acquire exceptional ability and powers to deal with this phenomenon.

Very challenging but never impossible.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris

Related Stories

Jason Micallef’s disgust – Kevin Cassar
Not even Jason Micallef, ONE chairman, and Emanuel Cuschieri,
Why our leaders fail us – Ranier Fsadni
It used to be a clash of the titans.

Our Awards and Media Partners

Award logo Award logo Award logo Award logo