The 18th of June marked the hundredth day of the new government. The hundred-day yardstick for measuring a government’s progress is as misleading as it is arbitrary. While the short time-span suggests swift, purposeful action, it really means that newcomers to office will usually be too green and inexperienced to demonstrate true mastery.
Nevertheless, albeit not a perfect measure, the hundred-day standard for gauging government effectiveness is a useful one. The truth is that Prime Ministers and their government tend to be most effective when they first take office, when their leadership style seems fresh and new, when the aura of victory is still powerful, and when their impact on the country is usually at its height.
There is nothing magical about the number and it is undoubtedly an artificial yardstick. With this proviso firmly in mind, I propose to attempt an objective assessment of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s first one hundred days and what it might presage about the future.
It has been a patchy start. This was inevitable. The hype and expectations that had been built up during the election campaign were too high. The sheer size of the victory was overwhelming and may have led to a feeling of invincibility. Hubris in politics never lies far below the surface. This must be the first lesson for the Prime Minister if the promises on which he has been elected are to be fulfilled.
To be clear at the outset. The country was undoubtedly right to make a change to Labour. The election campaign threw up a massive corruption scandal that raised questions about the Nationalist government’s competence, accountability and the integrity of many, both in and outside government, who had been very close to it over the last decade. There can be no escaping that the so-called oil-gate scandal happened on the previous government’s watch and was enough, among many other factors – not least the Nationalists’ disunity – to justify the change. The Nationalist Party will benefit from a period of renewal in Opposition.
This said, the new administration has made a dodgy beginning. The disappointment has been no more apparent than in the mishandled President’s Speech and in the list of appointments made to public office. Meritocracy – that is government by persons selected competitively according to merit – was promised. Instead, we have seen a succession of appointments – the so-called “Billboard” appointments and others – based on no competitive selection and made up of a singular, predominant political colour. The proposal to appoint MPs to government Boards simply compounds the problem.
Nothing wrong with the colour – except that this was thought not to matter any more – but do they really “merit” the job based on competence and ability? That is the question. Only time will tell whether they will deliver effective results in their designated appointments. But two or three appointments have been divisive, high profile, needlessly provocative and could come back to haunt the Prime Minister. I have in mind the important Constitutional Convention and the Valletta 2018 project.
The same approach seems to have driven the Ministerial Code of Conduct saga. The Prime Minister is right to say that it needs revision and updating. But until it is re-issued, following thorough debate in Parliament (and underpinned by some form of Parliamentary Standards watch-dog to ensure it is adhered to), the current Code should prevail. Making exceptions to it on the hoof – as the Prime Minister is entitled to do – to accommodate particular ministerial circumstances serves to undermine respect for their office and the high standards of ministerial behaviour which the Prime Minister had promised.
The issues of public appointments and the Ministerial Code of Conduct are not in themselves game-changers, or even of overriding administrative importance. But they are indicative of a lack of proper prior thought and preparation. I have the impression – I may be wrong – that while Prime Minister Muscat’s election campaign was superbly planned, his detailed preparation for taking up the reins of government was poor. There has been no discernible plan for the smooth transfer of power to the incoming administration, no comprehensive audit of the government’s books to show the state of the legacy inherited, a feeling that the new government is not yet fully in command of events.
His determination to sweep away Permanent Secretaries who had served under the previous administration thought to be inimical to Labour led to all but three out of 13 top civil servants being removed. This was a questionable action constitutionally. Worse, it ensured that the institutional memory and experience so vital for continuity between one administration and the next was lost. While the need for trust between ministers and their senior civil servants is paramount, one cannot help feeling that this issue could have been handled with greater finesse. Coupled with the sweeping restructuring of ministerial responsibilities, it has meant that most ministers and their staffs have got off to a laboured start.
The exceptions to this may be Evarist Bartolo in Education, who has hit the ground running (interestingly, his Permanent Secretary remained in place), and Edward Scicluna at Finance (whose Permanent Secretary also provided continuity). The latter immediately had to tackle the budget. The (Nationalist) budget and its concomitant effect on the economy are providing the government’s first real test and may prove the most intractable aspect of Prime Minister Muscat’s premiership as campaign promises, based on elusive economic growth collide with the realities of eurozone recession and EU Commission disciplinary procedures.
Already, the European Commission’s Excessive Deficit Procedure is under way and shots have been fired across the government’s bow about the essential need to tackle Malta’s long-term health and pension costs. The fact of the matter is that the government has been hasty in passing the previous administration’s budget, with its over-optimistic revenue predictions and its over-generous pre-election promises. The causes may lie with the profligacy of the previous government, but the responsibility to clean up is now Prime Minister Muscat’s.
In most other respects, major action has been slow. The impression is that the government is still in election mode and has not yet switched to steering the ship of state. Seeking to deliver on ill-judged promises to Monti hawkers and hunters, or the amnesty of prisoners, may seem like the easy bit, but it is not the essence of governing. The government’s inexperience has been plain to see. A much steadier hand on the tiller is needed if the government is not to be knocked off course by a major crisis, for example another euro-crisis.
Every government is elected with a reservoir of democratic trust. Prime Minister Muscat came with an overwhelming bank of trust. But being elected on a slogan of Malta Taghna Lkoll may prove an albatross round his neck. In the first hundred days some of that trust has been eroded. Once lost it is difficult for governments to recover. He must continue to use the weeks before the summer recess to deliver a start on some of the substantive measures – such as the excellent review of the judiciary – on which he was elected.