Political observers of all hues have sympathised with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s lament about a “limited pool of talent” among MPs.
Dr Gonzi’s frustration with the situation was revealed in a leaked US Embassy cable dating back to 2008 as he was trying to form a new Cabinet. He went on to point out that he did not have the facility to appoint technocrats since our Constitution spells out that ministers need to be elected officials.
But as the government rushes to clarify the comment and defend MPs, commentators, including former ministers, said they believe the Prime Minister’s worries were justified.
“If countries far bigger than us need technocrats, why don’t we?” former minister Michael Falzon said when contacted.
“Without making any judgements on present members of Parliament, I have already said I was in favour of considering amending the Constitution to allow for technocrats to be made ministers, without being members of Parliament,” Mr Falzon said.
Writing in today’s Talking Point (see back page), former finance minister Lino Spiteri also said it might be worth discussing whether a “limited number of ministers” could be appointed from outside Parliament.
“They would sit in the Cabinet and the Prime Minister would be accountable to the House for their actions,” Mr Spiteri writes, adding that Dom Mintoff and Dr Gonzi had both implemented a version of it; Mr Mintoff by having General Workers Union members sit in on Cabinet meetings, Dr Gonzi by having Richard Cachia Caruana in attendance.
“Rather than tinkering with the idea, our political parties could do worse than discuss how it can be formalised.”
The former head of PN’s political think-tank AZAD, Ranier Fsadni, said the issue of the rules framing the appointment of government ministers “remains an important issue since behind it lies a broader question: nearly 50 years after Independence, does our Constitution still meet all our functional needs for good governance?”
Mr Fsadni argued that it was not clear whether the Prime Minister had expressed this wish but “it’s such a reasonable wish it doesn’t need justification”.
Moreover, it not just a Maltese issue, Mr Fsadni pointed out: “Even Tony Blair’s governments, with huge majorities in a Parliament, with 10 times as many members as Malta’s, were said to suffer from a lack of available talent.”
In Malta the issue may be exacerbated by certain factors, however. Among these, Mr Fsadni argued, was the size of Parliament: a government with 34 seats that needed to fill 14 ministerial and parliamentary secretarial posts effectively needed to draw on 40 per cent of its parliamentary contingent.
“I’m not aware of any other EU government that needs to draw on such a high proportion of its MPs, or indeed of any European political party that is judged, even by its own electors, to have 40 per cent of its MPs worthy of ministerial appointment.”
The second reason is that while Maltese political parties can push preferred candidates, the ultimate choice, given our voting system, is in the voters’ hands.
“Our system is biased towards producing representatives who are very responsive to their constituents, not towards maximising the choices of the Prime Minister; the pool of talent it favours is the talent of being a good representative, not a good minister,” Mr Fsadni said.
Labour MEP and economics professor Edward Scicluna thinks that the restriction on where to choose Cabinet members from puts Malta at a disadvantage.
Far larger countries than Malta ventured outside of politics to get the best people for the job. “Take (former French Minister of Finance) Christine Lagarde – she was headhunted by Sarkozy when she was working in America. That’s how they get the best people,” Prof. Scicluna pointed out.
“This will happen when the Prime Minister feels that he needs the expertise... It’s in the interest of both parties,” Prof Scicluna said.
David Friggieri, a European law expert who dabbled with roles in Alternattiva Demokratika took the discussion elsewhere asking: what keeps some of Malta’s top minds away from real politics?
“My impression is that the system is somehow repelling several competent people who prefer to carve out their own personal success and wait on the sidelines, rather than get politically involved.
“Consequently, there has been a general regression in the overall quality of politics and political discourse in this country. It’s quite sad, for instance, that my generation has not been capable of creating anything truly politically significant over the past 15 years. Our generation has contributed massively to areas such as IT, design, medicine and, to an extent, niche cultural products, but politically we have created nothing innovative at all,” Dr Friggieri said.
There is a limit even on the most expert minds, however, according to Mr Fsadni:
“Any government ministry, no matter how technocratic, also requires political skills of compromise, communication and mobilisation of support – and a technocrat might not possess such skills.”
The term “technocrat” was in many cases misleading, he argued, since the person appointed was not a pure technocrat so much as an unelected political animal with some relevant technical background.
“They’re not quite a different species from elected politicians, although they are less distracted by the need to seek personal re-election.”