In a powerful leader on the apparent conflict of interest exposed by the appointment of Dr Michael Falzon, the lawyer representing the fireworks industry, as chairman of a Mepa working group to propose new rules for the building of fireworks factories in Outside Development Zone (ODZ) areas, the Times of Malta began by stating: “The government’s first six months in office have been marked, above all, by a succession of public appointments in which party colour, not quality or merit, has dominated the selection process. Meritocracy was promised incessantly in the months before the election. Cronyism and patronage were to become things of the past.

“Instead, there was a clean sweep of virtually every previous public appointee, the removal and redeployment of almost 80 per cent of the Permanent Secretaries and the still to be formally announced replacement of all ambassadorial posts. Some appointments have been deliberately politically provocative, and may in due course come to haunt the government. The pre-election promises of meritocracy have been largely betrayed.

“The key, it could be argued by the Prime Minister in his defence, lies in whether the new incumbents will deliver effective results, not their political affiliation. That is an admissible argument, though it still leaves hanging unanswered whether political loyalty on its own is any test of real competence.”

I have quoted from The Times leader extensively because there can be little doubt that the way in which Prime Minister Muscat has handled public appointments in his first six months in office has been a major blot on the government’s record. Whereas the new Labour government has shown so much welcome energy and drive compared with the tired and lacklustre performance of the previous Nationalist administration and is beginning to deliver, albeit patchily, on some of its key promises especially in the energy field, its approach to public appointments has left every right-thinking, independent-minded person (those, indeed, who form the bulk of the floating voter community) with a feeling that they were conned.

Virtually the whole approach to public appointments has been antithetical to the concept of meritocracy, marked it would appear – with a very few notable exceptions – by considerations of political colour, not competence or merit. It is no good arguing that the Nationalists in power were equally culpable and venial. They undoubtedly were. But the electorate was promised something different. It was promised an end to partisan appointments, to be replaced by one where competence, integrity and the national interest would be the overriding criteria for selection.

I believe the way the exercise has been conducted will dog the Prime Minister for the next five years, and could well affect the outcome of the European Parliamentary elections next year as voters take advantage of an unimportant election to administer a warning to the government about the dangers of hubris and arrogance and the broken promise of Malta Taghna Lkoll.

The tragedy is that the Opposition Nationalist Party is already no doubt storing up promises of rewards to their apparatchiks when their place in the sun comes round again in five or 10 years’ time, using the  last six months as a model to be followed rather than rejected. They would be wrong and short-sighted to think that way. What Joseph Muscat’s campaign promise of Malta Taghna Lkoll demonstrated was that there was a genuine thirst for a new kind of meritocratic and inclusive politics. The fact that he hasn’t delivered it does not in any way negate the overwhelming wish by thinking members of the electorate for things to be different. On the contrary, it reinforces it.

The spark of hope that Joseph Muscat lit in the election campaign is too important to be cynically extinguished. What, therefore, is to be done by a truly radical new administration to break the cycle of cronyism and patronage based on political colour, which is what thinking people want? 

We should start from the basis, as Malta’s only independent think-tank stated, “A government should exercise its mandate in the interests of the many, not the few – in the long-term interests of the country as a whole, not sectoral interests within it. It should seek consensus and cooperation, rather than confrontation. It should place a premium on developing people and enlisting all the talent available in the service of Malta, regardless of social background, gender or political affiliation.”

It is inevitable in a small country like Malta, where everybody knows or is acquainted with everybody else, that conflicts of interest should arise. It is also inevitable that the selection of individuals for public appointments should be influenced by political considerations. In saying this, I nevertheless automatically rule out the current proposal to appoint MPs to run public boards. There is an intrinsic conflict of interest between a Member of Parliament’s duty to parliament and his constituents and his participation in the executive. The two should not intermingle no matter how honourable the Member or how relevant his own personal expertise.

There is nothing wrong in principle with political appointments, provided always that those selected do not have a conflict of interest and are demonstrably individuals of integrity, competence and objectivity. We have only to hark back to the maladministration and possible stench of corruption at Enemalta in the first decade of this century to understand how abysmally the current system for making public appointments has failed us. It is a system which remains unreformed and, therefore, vulnerable to similar abuse.

It needs to be replaced by one that reduces conflicts of interest to the greatest extent possible, while ensuring that public confidence in the process is credibly established. A process of independent, public scrutiny and selection of individuals to serve in a wide range of specified appointments as executive chairmen or CEOs on public boards, ambassadors or other sensitive top public appointments should be introduced in order to demonstrate openly that those carrying these important responsibilities are seen transparently to have no conflicts of interest and to be beyond reproach on grounds of quality, competence and integrity.

The Prime Minister should, as now, have the power to select those who in his judgment are best suited to these appointments. But he should then submit his choices to Parliament for scrutiny and approval by Parliamentary Select Committees, which will be responsible for addressing three questions and recommending accordingly. First, can the individual put the public interest above his private interest? Second, can he or she put the national interest above his purely sectoral or political interest? And third, is the individual of the right calibre – professionally competent; of proven acumen and good judgment; independent-minded and non-partisan; fully committed to public service?

The Select Committees will have the right to examine and reject any nominee and the Prime Minister will be invited to propose replacements for those found wanting. While this system will undoubtedly be more laborious than today’s selection on a ministerial or political whim, in a modern and supposedly mature democracy it will also be more transparent and accountable. It may also give ministers pause before making some of the questionable appointments we have witnessed over the last 10 years.