If, as The Malta Independent reports, political satire is truly alive and kicking in this year's carnival, the government's own political farce seems to be unstoppable. What was supposed to be the most formidable cabinet in history has actually turned out to be the most arrogant and incompetent, continuously finding ways of exposing itself to self-inflicted ridicule. And they just keep on digging.
Condemned by yet another constitutional authority
A few days ago, the government announced the appointment of two new magistrates that immediately caused raised eyebrows. Suspicions were confirmed as soon as the Minister refused to answer the more than legitimate questions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
It transpired that both women were ineligible for the post: one did not have the necessary experience required constitutionally whilst the other was prohibited from serving on the bench because of her current role.
Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil immediately alerted the President of the Republic of the conundrum created by the government's rash decision to announce the appointments: the kind of rashness that immediately reminds us of the handling of the obscene sale of citizenship government scheme, amongst others; the kind of rashness that has been prevalent since these people took power; the kind of rashness that cannot be downplayed as a "silly mistake" but is rather a symptom of incompetence, arrogance and a sheer lack of good governance. Her Excellency the President confirmed to Dr Busuttil that her office "will not proceed with the oath of office of the two appointees" until there is constitutional clearance.
The Commission for the Administration of Justice confirmed the doubts raised by the Opposition Leader and by the Dean of the Faculty of Laws amongst others. The Malta Independent reported that the commission was "clear in providing the government with a clear-cut explanation that Zammit Young's nomination was in breach of the Constitution". This condemnation of government proceedings follows another outright condemnation by yet another constitutional authority in the Old Mint Street corruption case.
Good governance and the current lack of it
The good governance vision presented by the Leader of the Opposition a few months ago simply hit the nail on the head. It spoke specifically about new ways of appointing members of the judiciary but, more than that, it spoke about the need to install principles of transparency, meritocracy, dialogue and trust in our country's governance: principles that are at best debatable in this magisterial mess.
Against any principles of good governance, the Labour Government did not consult either the Parliamentary Opposition or the Chamber of Advocates, as has been common practice in the past. It asked for the advice of the Commission for the Administration of Justice only post-announcement, as if the Commission can change the Constitution. Arrogantly and deliberately it just steamrollered over all of them. But as arrogance does not make up for a lack of competence, the government earned only across-the-board indignation.
The Chamber of Advocates also criticised the government on these appointments. It argued that the government's refusal to only appoint members of the judiciary after adequate consultation and scrutiny regarding the competence and qualifications of candidates has led it to this dismal failure.
The best cabinet in history, my foot. How amateurish.