Four years ago, I addressed a Business Breakfast meeting on the subject of Climate Change. The object of the talk was two-fold: to draw attention to this pressing challenge confronting Malta and to use it as a medium for launching the establishment of Malta’s only independent think-tank, The Today Public Policy Institute.

In the course of my talk, I took a light-hearted dig at the way we do politics in Malta. I said: “Any strategy for survival must set out policies not just for the next year or two, but must look 20 years ahead, or more. However, our system of government militates largely against this. By their nature, politicians look two or three years ahead to the next election. Politics here reminds me of unarmed combat carried out with the tactics of First World War trench warfare, heads rarely raised above the mud of the parapet – engulfed and deafened by the noise and the general fog of war.” I added: “I obviously exaggerate for effect. I say all this quite tongue in cheek”.

Despite this disclaimer, Dr Austin Gatt, then the minister responsible for Enemalta, who had received a copy of my talk as a matter of courtesy since it underlined the need for urgent action to improve our energy capacity, had a sense of humour failure. He wrote to me on 7 May 2007 as follows: “Since I am obviously one of those politicians who ‘only look two or three years ahead to the next election’; ‘remind (you) of unarmed combat…’; ‘tend to be good opportunists and tacticians but poor strategists’; ‘survive till next Friday afternoon’ and I am only good to make popular but not right choices, actually postpone decisions rather than take them and is unable to think ‘broadly, impartially and objectively’ I see no point in you wasting your time talking to such a low down scum as myself. May the ‘non-political individuals of probity, judgement, experience and accumulated wisdom’, (with which you obviously – with due modesty – include yourself) not only form a ‘think-tank’ but also grace this country by leading it for the next twenty years. The only problem is that you would then have to be a politician…..and horror of horrors, you would have to mix with the great unwashed to convince them that you are indeed worthy of a vote!”

I have had many fan letters in my time, but none as amusing as that one. Yet, I must now confess that, as the dust settles on the infamous leaked United States cable, reporting that Prime Minister Gonzi had complained to Ambassador Bordanaro that he only had “a limited talent pool” from which to form a Cabinet, in his heavy-handed way Austin Gatt may have had a point. With all the talk about bringing in “technocrats” to run government ministries, would this be the answer to Malta’s dearth of political talent? Would a ‘Government of all the talents’ – goats for short (not my acronym) – provide the answer to this or any future Prime Minister’s problems? Leader of the Opposition Joseph Muscat has already leapt on the band-wagon and expressed himself in favour of amending our Constitution to make the appointment of technocrats to Cabinet a possibility. A little further thought might give him pause.

Any discussion on this subject must start from the realistic premise that a country like Malta which has a population no larger than that of a provincial town in Europe, say Manchester in England, is inevitably faced with a limited pool from which to choose not only its political leaders but also its top professionals, businessmen, administrators, academics, diplomats, churchmen and all the other human resources that go to make a successful and thriving liberal democracy. Given the limitations of size, Malta has done remarkably well and produced some outstanding individuals. It is inevitable, however, that on the whole the private sector has attracted the best minds and the most dynamic individuals. Our politicians have been a mixed bag: mostly dedicated public servants, some competent some not, including some charlatans. It would be wrong to tar them all with the same brush, but it would be right to conclude that the talent pool is limited.

But to suppose that the introduction of technocrats (by which one normally means non-political experts who have been successful in particular fields, such as business or finance) into Cabinet would provide a silver bullet which would transform the quality and competence of government is misleading. Advocates of the introduction of technocrats argue that outsiders could significantly widen the skills and experience available to the government and that the size and complexity of modern government requires ministers with more technocratic skills. They would inject into government experience and expertise gained from outside politics.

However, this argument assumes that political experience cannot breed expertise in a particular subject or portfolio. A study of expertise – which is what those in favour of technocrats stress – is not necessarily a study of competence. Simply because a technocrat is brought in as a minister with subject expertise does not necessarily make him or her a competent minister. And competence in government is what we are seeking. Competence stems from a much wider range of different skills.

One has only to examine the main areas in which ministers have to exercise their broad range of skills to be convinced of this: in parliament, in their ministry, across government ministries, and in society. Ministers are responsible for setting policy, for the management of their ministry, for the advocacy of their ministry’s position in Cabinet, in Parliament, in the European Union, in their own party and through their relations with the media, interest groups and the public at large.

While technocrats who have held senior positions in business or other large organisations clearly have relevant experience which would be useful in government, the inescapable fact is that, under our system of government, accountability is at the heart of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the executive. Ministers are responsible to the House of Representatives for the decisions and actions of their ministries. Our representatives in Parliament jealously insist that it is their function to hold ministers to account.

The United Kingdom experience, with which I am more familiar, as well as that of other countries in Europe, is littered with examples of technocrats who have failed as ministers simply because the business of politics is itself an art and a profession requiring a wide range of different skills not always given to technocrats brought up in the structured corporate world. Dealing with Parliament and handling relations with the media and the broader public – sniffing out the art of the possible - are not always skills which come readily to technocrats.

My advice in the Maltese context would be to eschew the idea of parachuting technocrats as Ministers into government, but to look more closely at the possibility of bringing them in as so-called ‘tsars,’ under ministers, to inject some needed expertise in specific areas of government; for example, a Tsar for Competitiveness, or for Enterprise. But leave the business of politics to those who have been elected by the people to the job of politics – warts and all.

Martin Scicluna is the Director General of Malta’s only independent think-tank, The Today Public Policy Institute. He writes here in a personal capacity.