14 July 1989 is not all that long ago. On that day, a Public Service Reform Commission, which had been set up a year earlier “to examine the organisation of the public service and to recommend means by which the service could efficiently respond to the changing needs for effective government”, published its first stage report.

The plan was to launch “a new public service for Malta”.

Granted that the Commission was much struck by its first impressions, which it described as “disturbing”, and that the service was “in the throes of a prolonged crisis of morale”, the commissioners produced a challenging report.

They set the goals and strategies for change. The report was designed to restore the institutional fabric of the public service, to build organisational capacity, and to win public confidence in the service.

Famous last words

The objective was to create “a culture of excellence and integrity”, to develop administrative structures and management systems, to retain “ the brightest and the ablest” in the service, to improve the quality of management, to invest in technology and plant, to increase planning and audit capabilities and much else besides.

Eighteen years later, these famous last words sound hollow. Salary structures were indeed revised. A small army of directors and managers materialised from nowhere.

Incentive bonuses and perks were instituted. These are well deserved by civil servants equal to their responsibilities.

But, sad to say, a good many of them are not performing so well collectively, and in some cases, also individually.

An efficient civil service represents a standing army of power, capable of converting politics into policies and decisions into programmes. It should be a piece of ballast in times of innovation and change and the most essential tool of government.

Litany of mismanagement

Alas, it is nothing of the sort. Successive reports by the Office of the Auditor General incorporated a litany of mismanagement and downright misdemeanours ranging from excess payments for overtime and allowances, ignoring official instructions and bypassing official controls, lack of security in certain sensitive places and so on.

The Public Service Reform Commission recognised the need for tough action to “root out patronage, corruption and incompetence” and to expose impropriety and abuse by imposing quick effective penalties on defaulters.

The Commission highlighted its concern about “the scant evidence of effective action against negligent and incompetent officials at every level”, the “inadequate provision for the speedy audit of administrative procedures” and “the restrictions on judicial review of administrative discretion”.

The writ of the Public Service Reform Commission never ran far enough, possibly because civil servants were subdued or overshadowed by forceful political personalities or because weak departmental heads took the line of least resistance.

Missed objectives

Explanations make no difference to the end results. Eighteen years on, the latest reports from the Office of the Auditor General read like a barometer registering a persistent depression.

Considering that Malta was being piloted at speed in the direction of the EU, the substantial investment in public service reform and, subsequently, the setting up of the erstwhile Management Systems Unit did not sustain the overriding policy objectives.’

On the contrary, Malta found itself in the grip of an unprecedented structural deficit, and is burdened by an oversized civil service that lacks the confidence of its masters who tend to rely increasingly on a proliferation of quangos, operating outside civil service direct control. .

All along, there have been numerous instances of maladministration, abuse of office, of capricious over-expenditure. Stories of corruption – real or perceived – constituted a common thread in the public service fabric. And, all along, transparent disciplinary measures, independent investigations and resignations were conspicuous by their absence.

Who is responsible?

I submit, with the greatest respect to all concerned, that if Malta had a competent civil service, with the élan that springs from authority, and the resources that come with it, Maltese politicians would have been obliged to concentrate on policy- making while the bureaucracy took charge of the nitty-gritty.

Things haven’t turned out that way. Many top civil servants caved in under pressure from overbearing politicians. The bureaucracy is inert and the government paralysed.

Who is responsible for the ensuing mess and the rising odour of corruption?

Ministers have been in the firing line with increasing frequency, but no heads have ever rolled, and the long-suffering taxpayers are helpless.

[email protected]