Day after day news reaches the country of yet another controversial appointment made by the various sections of the government.

One does not question the government’s right to appoint people of its own choice, people considered to be loyal to the governing administration.

Malta, in this respect, resembles (with due proportions) the US rather than other countries one could care to list. A change in administration brings with it wholesale appointments from top to the very bottom.

But time and again the government is appointing people chosen because of their party loyalty rather than because of their competence. This tidal wave has swept away all the pre-election talk of an inclusive government where even those who do not subscribe to the government’s ideology could be comfortable in finding a role for themselves.

By surrounding itself with yes-men and party people, the government risks losing track of objectivity and competence. Valuable roles and posts are being handed over to people who do not offer huge credibility they can handle the situation.

Loyalty is important, but so is competence and an ability to be objective.

There was a time when it did not matter much who was appointed, even to Cabinet level because Malta was a small state and the person on top could be counted upon to be on top of every situation.

But now that Malta is part of the EU, and the Commonwealth and of a plethora of other organizations, we just cannot afford not to be competent in the various international roles that are thrust upon us.

The coming celebrations of the 50th anniversary of Independence and the 10th anniversary of EU accession may not matter that much. But further along Malta will be, for the very first time in its history, occupying the post of President of the EU and this role is a very delicate one, one that must be handled with extreme care.

Just before that, Malta will host the CHOGM and while mostly celebratory, all the gifts of tact and diplomacy will be needed at the customary and ritual issues that will undoubtedly crop up, the Commonwealth being a rather fragile collection of countries with some shared past history and not always with a clear vision of what democracy and rule of law is about.

Hosting the CHOGM is definitely not a case of just stage-managing the celebrations but more an opportunity to become a mediator, a facilitator of those who most deserve to be in the Commonwealth while being strong with regards to those who are delinquent.

There are then all the widespread controversies regarding appointments in the cultural sector. Now this paper would be the first to admit that in this specific sector, at any time there would be personal ambitions, personal rivalries and the like. No government would be expected to get all appointments right, at least all the time. There seems to be no way that any supervisory board could garner the support of the majority of the people active in this sector.

But to do away with what has been done, to operate a complete change not just in the people at the helm but also in the principles and policies seems uncalled for and rather vindictive. There was no mention, anywhere, during the election campaign that this sector needed a thorough overhaul.

Apart from that, the people in this sector, and the people who had previously been appointed are among the least partisan of all. Sweeping them off the wall has had a very negative impact on them.

Of course, all this has nothing to do with the question of money and the remuneration they have been receiving. If the government wants to operate curbs and austerities in this regard, in line with its financial priorities, it would be right to do so, but arts and culture are not and can never be quantified with profits and losses. To look, for instance, at a museum’s entry revenues to justify expenditure on that museum flies in the face of what the world understands by culture and the arts. These are sectors where no amount of correspondence between revenue and expenditure is ever possible and where the country, within limits, must spend in order to upgrade the cultural offer for its citizens first and also for visitors.

And finally, what country will ours be if all posts of responsibility are filled with yes-men and partisan supporters and where there is little if any role for those who are independent or who do not want to get tarred with a partisan brush?