Much government work concerns projects that range over different fields of activity. Their implementation is most successful when those responsible in the different areas coordinate their work in an exercise that starts from the project’s planning stage and continues up to the “very end”, when it is either completed or will now be running on a regular basis.

In the past, government services would find it difficult to coordinate their deliveries. The tradition was to run a job out of “closed” sectioned departments. Factories would be built and later approach roads would be laid out and still later utilities would arrive, at their own pace... Such an organizational mentality still exists though it has weakened in intensity.

As it happens, coordination within an administrative team which includes all the areas of activity covered by a given project has become increasingly necessary. Perhaps the greatest progress on these lines has occurred in the preparation of projects earmarked for EU financing.  

***

A CONSTITUENCY OR A MINISTRY?

It is not so clear whether ministers are working all-out to promote the interests of their cabinet portfolio or whether they’re concentrating fully on their constitutency in order to ensure their own re-election.

The point can be made equally for Nationalists or Labourites. It applies in a big way to both political camps. In fact it is quite true that as I was told once by a minister (whom I shall not name nor tell which party he belonged to): If you’re a minister you need to be elected with a good number of votes, otherwise you’ll bomb. To get elected you need to win votes in your constituency. Votes cast outside it do not count.

Still, a ministry has to be run sensibly and prudently. If a ministry is converted into just a vote mongering machine... or almost... for the ministerial incumbent, it can quickly get derailed. I am unconvinced that this would not then be to the disadvantage of the minister, even in his own constituency... although it is also quite true that people take time to realize that what was presented to them as a success actually turned out to be a disaster.

***

THE COURTS OF LAW

For a long time, there has been much talk about improvements and reforms in the law courts and in future, this talk will apparently go on and on. Steps were taken to increase and equip better the halls where court sessions are held – to increase the number of judges (though we have been told once more that we still need more) – to increase the remuneration that members of the judiciary receive – and to modernise legal procedures.

Yet one could still say that there has hardly been significant progress. When one compares the outcomes of our judicial system with those of other European states (taking care to maintain relativities) the conclusion is that our citizens are still getting perhaps the worst deal in the quality of the legal services they can access. The worst defect remains the exagerrated delays in the completion of court cases.

As of now I still cannot understand how limited progess has been registered on this front. I cannot believe that we do not have sufficient legal brains of top quality and that among them there is not enough goodwill one way or another, to find a solution to this really serious problem that reflects so badly on our community.