All governments surround themselves with people they trust or who share their policies and ideas. This is especially so in sensitive positions.

Policies and ideas have to be implemented, and implemented well, and therefore governments recruit people who are able to carry out the tasks set out in the proper way, in the shortest time possible and within established financial budgets. It is normal that they opt for people who share the same ideals to do this work: both sides will be more comfortable with the other.

In previous administrations, the Nationalist Party chose people in whom it had full confidence to execute its plans. There were many occasions when the Nationalist government was accused of offering jobs to its “blue-eyed boys”. We all remember reference to “friends of friends” and “clique”, which were widely used by the government’s detractors.

Now it is the Labour Party’s turn to do so and, as its predecessors in government did, it is selecting those who it is convinced will help the government accomplish its election programme, or at least try to, in the next five years.

In the two months since it was elected, the Labour government has embarked on a comprehensive exercise to re-appoint committees and authorities. It is no surprise that the great majority of those who sat on such committees or authorities under the previous administration have been kicked out and replaced by others. What was not right is that, in many cases, the people who served in the past legislature did not even get a letter of thanks for their services – and some of them got to know that they were no longer needed via media reports.

There is, however, one important factor that cannot be overlooked when such appointments are made – and this is the competence of the people who are engaged. It is the crux of the matter, because governments cannot afford to employ people just because of their political colour; allegiance and trust must be accompanied by ability.

In other words, there would be nothing wrong if capable, experienced or competent Labourites are given these appointments. There are many of them, and the country needs their services.

What is definitely wrong is that, in many instances, the appointments that have been made so far have not been based on competence, but simply because a person endorsed the Labour Party in public.

There is another angle to the issue.

Before the election, Joseph Muscat was saying two things that, I am sure, helped the Labour Party win with an unprecedented majority.

The first was the word “meritocracy”, and the second was that “people can be in disagreement with us (the PL), but they can still work with us”. Both had an impact on the minds of people. To me, they were crucial to Labour’s victory.

Added to this, the Labour Party’s election slogan was “Malta Taghna Lkoll” and, given that the PL placed a strong emphasis on what it described as the PN’s oligarchy, it gave the impression – and Joseph Muscat said it many times – that a PL government would be inclusive.

Through such statements, people were led to think that the Labour Party would not be looking at political colour when it came to making appointments. There was reason to believe that these would be based on merit. People who did not agree with Labour were led to understand that, if they wished to, they would be allowed to make their contribution.

But this is not happening. It has not taken long to realise that what was being said before the election has been quickly discarded.

Meritocracy is no longer a buzzword in Labour’s dictionary. It has not been mentioned at all after the election. Those in disagreement with the Labour Party have found out that, after all, they are not being allowed to work with it. The inclusivity that the PL showed when in Opposition is not being confirmed in government.

Looking at the list of appointees to the various boards that have been set up in these first two months of the PL administration, only a handful of them were based on merit.

On the other hand, many other appointments have been given to people simply because their face was splashed on large PL billboards, appeared on Super One to say they will be voting Labour “for the first time”, or in some other way pushed Labour’s cause. Candidates who contested with Labour – and who were not elected – have got something too.

Some pro-Labour people have been placed on committees and authorities when they do not have the skills required for the job with which they have been entrusted. An illiterate person cannot be asked to write an essay and yet, metaphorically speaking, some of the appointees have been asked to write a book.

Added to this, the Labour Party has also created positions just to be able to find a place for people who served its purposes in the run-up to the election. It is just a blatant way of saying “thank you for endorsing Labour” – and all this at the expense of the taxpayers.

There have also been attempts to hide several of the appointments made. When lists started appearing, it was easy to notice that names were given as they are shown on ID cards, rather than in the form by which the appointees are known in public and, in the case of women, the surname that was used was not the one they use in public.

One last thing. What happened to the pre-election proposal for the public to vote, via the internet, for people they would like to see appointed to boards, committees and authorities? Mind you, I never liked the idea because I found it ludicrous to have a Eurovision-type contest for such posts. But is this another promise that Labour has already thrown out of the window?

[email protected]