Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has tried to justify himself following the revelations by WikiLeaks of what he thinks about the local political system and the choice of ministers. He said that his comment to the United States Ambassador – the now famous “limited talent pool” remark made confidentially to a representative of a foreign country, not to his closest advisor – was not a direct jibe at the abilities (or inabilities) of the Nationalist MPs elected by the people, from whom he could choose his Cabinet, but a general statement on how restricted his options are because of Malta’s laws. This is because in Malta, unlike in the US, Prime Ministers cannot pick and choose their ministers from outside the House of Representatives. They must select them from among the list of parliamentarians, and this means that they have to juggle with a small group of people with their political ambitions and limitations in terms of expertise – and all this while keeping in mind that, if possible, each electoral district should get something. The PM’s explanation came after many had interpreted his words to the foreign diplomat to mean that he does not think much of the Nationalist MPs who sit by his side and behind him in Parliament, and therefore found himself at a loss when it came to deciding who will be a minister or parliamentary secretary and which portfolio he or she was to be given. Quite frankly, this latter interpretation does have a solid basis on which to stand, irrespective of how Dr Gonzi now tries to hide behind Malta’s constitutional provisions when it comes to the selection of Cabinet members. With the benefit of hindsight, and now knowing what Dr Gonzi told former US Ambassador Molly Bordonaro, events that have taken place since the 2008 election can be given a new meaning. For three-and-a-half years, we have been listening to Dr Gonzi saying that, when he was confirmed as Prime Minister by the smallest of margins in the March 2008 election, he wanted to have a leaner Cabinet of Ministers than the one he had had in the previous administration, giving as the main reason for this the wish to have a more efficient and effective set-up. But now the leaner Cabinet idea can be seen in a different perspective. Since the WikiLeaks revelation, there are now suspicions that the real reason behind having just eight ministers – from a parliamentary group of 35 – was not to have a more efficient Cabinet, but because the choices were limited. I looked up what Dr Gonzi said when the swearing-in ceremony of ministers and parliamentary secretaries took place at the Palace in Valletta in the week following the 8 March 2008 election. Dr Gonzi had told the journalists present that the “smaller Cabinet with a strong injection of new people… in no way undermines the validity of all those who gave their contribution” in the previous term. “My choice does not reflect on their (former ministers’) capabilities, but is due to my decision to respond to the wishes of the people to see new faces.” Well, with what we know now, these comments do not seem to be so genuine, as what he publicly stated at the swearing-in ceremony appears to be a contradiction of what he confidentially remarked to the US Ambassador. Comparing both statements, one could be inclined to think that the injection of new faces was not to respect the people’s call for change but was used as an excuse to get rid of the older faces whose work had not pleased Dr Gonzi in the previous term. It’s as simple as that, and the Nationalist MPs who were irked by Dr Gonzi’s choices at the time they were made have now realised why they were left out – and now have reason to feel even more annoyed. The Nationalist Party even used the leaner Cabinet excuse when the parliamentary honoraria issue was making headlines earlier this year. It was repeatedly said that the decision to have fewer ministers had resulted in reduced administration costs, as fewer staff were required. The PN implied, therefore, that the increase in the honoraria had not cost the taxpayer as much as it would have done, had Dr Gonzi gone for a larger Cabinet. Now that we heard the “limited talent pool” comment, we can interpret the decision to have fewer ministers as being made not keep costs as low as possible, but because human resources were lacking. At the time it was made, the leaner Cabinet move was discussed at length, some arguing that working with a smaller group enabled the Prime Minister to exercise a better control on government matters, while others pointed out that ministers had too much on their respective plates. But it immediately led to the rumblings and grumblings behind closed doors – and later in the open as well – as many MPs wanted to play their part in the running of the country, but believed that they had been side-lined by Dr Gonzi. It was only when a number of parliamentary assistants were appointed – officially to distribute the workload better – that the internal troubles within the Nationalist Party subsided. Whether Dr Gonzi introduced the concept of parliamentary assistants because he believes in their contribution or if it was just to calm the waters and keep everyone happy is not really known. And whether the waters have been calmed is still a big question, too. There is another event that can be interpreted as meaning that Dr Gonzi’s confidence in Nationalist MPs is rather limited. The resignation of John Dalli as Social Policy Minister to enable him to be appointed as a European Commissioner did not lead to his replacement in the Cabinet. He was simply substituted by Joe Cassar, who was promoted from parliamentary secretary – and no-one else was brought in to replace Dr Cassar. All this leads me to think that the “limited talent pool” remark might have been less innocent than the PM would now have us believe. [email protected]