As the general election campaign has progressed (if that is the right word), the promises and manifesto “proposals” from the two party leaders have become more strident, more mercenary and in some cases more puerile (think of the childrens' tablet war).
The Nationalist Party has at least attempted to give its manifesto promises a veneer of respectability by placing a cost on what it is proposing - unaffordable though it is. This is not the case with the Labour leader, where we mostly hear simplistic, often seemingly unthought-through, policy sound-bites. This is a great pity for Labour electors and the Labour Party. But, more importantly, it could be a tragedy for the country, as the polls continue to show Joseph Muscat heading inexorably for the Auberge de Castille on 10 March.
The proposal which has best exemplified Joseph Muscat's inclination to make policy on the hoof simply to capture a populist headline is his intention to allow the general public to contest and vote for boardroom seats in public entities. The pilot project envisages that a board-room seat in government entities, authorities and regulatory bodies would be reserved for a member of the public, who would be voted for on-line by fellow citizens.
Joseph Muscat is of course right to focus on the issue, but his proposed solution is a dud. The way in which appointments to public boards and entities have been made has long been a cause for concern. I suspect that the accusations and instances of sleaze and corruption – and inefficiency in public entities - which are being exposed today are a direct reflection of the Nationalist government's inclination to select the person for the job based solely on political colour. Is he or she “one of us” has more often than not been the sole criterion of choice.
But what should be done? Putting a number of board appointments to a public vote is certainly not the answer. The practical difficulties of doing this, let alone the likely outcome as a kind of Eurovision hysteria grips the nation as so-called “public” members of, say, the MEPA board or the board of Air Malta or Enemalta come up for election, are too scary to contemplate. What will there be to stop an astute construction magnate or a major businessman packing the on-line voting to ensure his nominee gets on the board, or more likely that somebody with absolutely no qualifications for the job – say, a popular footballer or comedian – is given the appointment?
If – as it should do – the new Labour government is seeking to change the culture which has so marked the last half century by ensuring that meritocracy prevails, and that only the best people are selected to serve on public boards and entities, Joseph Muscat should pursue a different line, not this gimmick trying to pass itself off as a policy in open government.
What has been lacking in Malta is a commitment, from the Cabinet down, that it will enlist all the talent available in the service of Malta, regardless of social background, gender or political affiliation. This, I believe, is what Joseph Muscat is trying to convey. But, if so, he is going about it in a cack-handed manner and his proposal should be dropped.
In a pluralist, parliamentary democracy, leaders are elected to government to administer the country as a whole to the best of their ability. This includes the difficult task of selecting the most qualified people as members of public boards, ambassadors of our country and heads of public entities. What we undoubtedly do not wish the government to do is to try to fob off these important and often difficult decisions by transferring responsibility for them to the outcome of a popular plebiscite.
Given that Joseph Muscat's instincts are right in believing it is a problem that needs resolving, he should be looking at other, more sensible ways of skinning this particular cat. There is a strong case for arguing that the government should not hold the monopoly on the final selection of members of key public boards and entities. A process of independent scrutiny and selection of individuals to serve on public entities should be introduced by asking Parliament to have a say in ensuring that those selected are seen openly and transparently to be beyond reproach. Most importantly, those selected to serve on public boards should reflect more fully the different components of civil society whose concerns they are meant to represent.
Members of Parliament are elected precisely to legislate for what is best for the country as a whole, guided but not bound by the feelings of their constituents. A better way to deal with this issue, therefore, would be to allow a prominent say on the selection of individuals for public boards and senior public appointments, such as ambassadors, to be guided by our legislators in Parliament, acting in the best interests of the country as a whole.
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet should of course have the power to submit the names of whosoever they wish to Parliament for scrutiny and approval. But the final selection of public boards and entities should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by already existing or specially created Parliamentary Standing Committees whose formal terms of reference will need amending accordingly. Parliament's scrutiny and selection process should address three key questions. First, can the individual put the public interest above his private interest? Secondly, can he or she put the national interest above his purely sectoral interest? Thirdly, does the individual meet the necessary personal criteria on technical knowledge, competence, probity and experience entailed by the public board's responsibilities, and is he or she of the right personal calibre?
If Joseph Muscat were wise, he should quietly drop all talk of public votes for public appointees, which is frankly a daft and impractical idea. If he is serious about the need for greater transparency and accountability in government and in the appointment of members of public boards and regulatory authorities, he should take a combination of measures to achieve the aims of proper open government. The passage of the long-awaited Whistleblower's Act and a stronger Freedom of Information Act, together with legislation on party financing – issues which successive Nationalist governments have consistently ducked, but to which Joseph Muscat appears committed – would go a long way towards this objective.
These actions, combined with a comprehensive system of parliamentary scrutiny of public appointments, would help achieve the long-awaited culture change in Malta's public life that is so essential to good governance and greater fairness in society.