As the two major political parties ratchet up the list of electoral promises, two particular proposals offer an insight into their mindset.

Labour intends to allow the public to contest and vote for boardroom seats on public entities while the Nationalist Party has said it would introduce quotas ensuring that 40 per cent of seats on government-owned boards are filled by women.

Both proposals would affect the boards of public entities. Both are populist in nature, designed to appeal to sectoral interests within civil society and to capture votes from those sectors. The key question which appears not fully to have been properly explored, however, is whether the proposals are either desirable or workable.

Taking, first, the Nationalist Party’s proposals on quotas for women. Having previously resisted the European Justice Commissioner’s threat to push through a mandatory ‘gender quota’ for all publicly-listed companies, it now appears to have relented. Although it has not fully embraced the Commission’s injunctions, if elected it would require all boards of government-owned companies to implement gender quotas.

The Labour Party has long promised their introduction.

There is a high risk that the only way to meet mandatory quotas would be by positive discrimination in favour of women, regardless of their calibre or qualifications .

While it is in the interests of boards that women worthy of advancement come to the fore, the overriding consideration should surely remain merit, not the achievement of artificial quotas.

As one leading businesswoman who is against female quotas put it: “The worst part for women is if they are on boards and give women a bad name.” There is a high risk that, although meritocracy should be the imperative requirement, the imposition of quotas might only serve to undermine it.

Labour’s policy initiative for a boardroom seat in government entities to be reserved for a member of the public, voted for online by fellow citizens, is imaginative and headline-grabbing. Yet, it is probably unworkable in practice.

The practical difficulties, as well as the likely outcome, as members of, say, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Enemalta or Air Malta boards come up for election and individuals with no, or the wrong, qualifications are put forward by popular vote to sit on them, are too serious to contemplate.

While Joseph Muscat is right to question the way in which the selection and appointment of members of public boards have hitherto been conducted, selecting the best people is not a duty that can or should be fobbed off onto a popular plebiscite. The answer is for the Government itself to change the culture so that meritocracy, regardless of social background, gender or political affiliation, prevails. That is the task of leadership, not popular votes.

The two proposals are indicative of desperate attempts by the party leaderships to attract votes from electors wherever they can find them. This is in the nature of democratic politics throughout the world and not dishonourable in itself. What is distasteful and dangerous is the tendency to make policy commitments on the hoof without thinking through their practical consequences.

Politics is littered with examples of seemingly well-meant policy initiatives having adverse, unintended consequences. These are two good such examples. The voting public should take them with a large pinch of salt.