When Malta assumed independence, it became responsible for its destiny with the onus of managing its own affairs, and with full responsibility for success or failure. The core problem was to develop an administrative machine, capable of introducing modern managerial ideas at the highest levels.
Good management implies ability to draw up sound strategies and to see that trained and responsible people under managerial direction apply them.
This does NOT mean that on taking office new ministers, who may lack administrative experience, personally assume the role of managers. Much less does it mean that politicians in elite positions should be encouraged or expected to develop an I-know-it-all personality, on the flimsy pretext that they have massive constituency support and are the beneficiaries of the Prime Minister’s prerogative.
Their job is not to run the show, but to see that the show is well run.
Arrogance of office
All of this applies to present, as well as several previous, incumbents of ministerial office.
There has been an increasing tendency in the past several years for ministers to monopolise the limelight, and to be seen as the main actors in their bailiwick, often replacing, and at times usurping outright, the role of their top civil servants. In such cases, ministers may be assisted by such personality traits as aggression or dogmatism, which helped them reach their position.
A manifestation of this phenomenon unfolds before our eyes almost daily, as one minister after another features in officiating positions in broadcast news bulletins or at stage-managed news conferences.
Over time, this display tends to become monotonous. It would be bad enough if it merely reflected a craving for political exposure. The malady however is much more serious. It often happens that ministers develop a tendency to dispense with the need of seeking advice and, at times, frown on any attempt to assist them with well-meaning suggestions.
When this stage is reached, arrogance takes over, with certain ministers notoriously imposing themselves and expecting their underlings to project their egos.
It has not always been so.
Past record
Malta’s civil service has a creditable past record. In the pre- and immediate post-war years, the service was disciplined and well led. The writ of the Administrative Secretary and of the Treasury ran to the lowest grades of the service The highest civil servants knew how to run a tight ship in difficult conditions, and knew equally well how to stand on their hind legs with superiors and subordinates alike. Their role was that of adviser as well as administrator. They had a sense of dignity and integrity that commanded respect and due consideration.
In time, they started to be bullied and the carpet was gradually pulled from under their feet. As their authority dwindled, their role was gradually usurped. More and more decisions at government level took on the political colour prevailing at the time.
It was no accident that, when the Malta Independence Constitution was promulgated in l964, providing specifically for the office of Permanent Secretary at the different ministries, there were no formal appointments for an inordinately long time.
Birds of passage
When the time came to appoint them, Permanent Secretaries were given performance contracts, which in effect reduced them to temporary status.
What is meant to be a permanent civil service is now being run by a team that could turn out to consist of birds of passage.
Every civil service must have its “mandarins”, who have the experience, depth of field and expertise, who can give ministers sound advice, and who can make sure that the departmental teams under their control can execute policies and deliver the goods, leaving the minister ample time to concentrate on policy-making and to acquit himself of his parliamentary and constituency responsibilities.
Since Malta’s EU accession, the dimension of responsibility assumed by Permanent Secretaries has been extended.
In this age of professionalism, the case for competent civil service leadership is much more forceful than ever before.
Is it by accident that the government has to rely increasingly on “experts” outside the civil service to draw up strategic reports and to offer expert advice? Does this amount to an admission that the Senior Civil Service is not up to scratch? Or is this practice a convenient ploy for politicians to “manufacture” the advice they need through the “experts” of their choice? If so, this raises sinister implications relating to democratic development.
How can Malta aspire to have a modern system of government unless its civil service is led by chieftains who, at top management level are seen to be actively contributing to the decisions of the Board of Directors, which is the Cabinet?
[email protected]