The Government is wasting no time in getting the trappings of the new administration into place. It is working at speed, sometimes with a little haste as well. For instance, one or two of the replaced permanent secretaries were approaching the end of their contract. Couldn’t there have been an overlap with a designate appointee?

The chairman of BoV was changed, with the AGM barely a fortnight away. Could the new appointment not have been made then?

The chairman of Bank of Valletta was changed, with the annual general meeting of the institution barely a fortnight away. Could the new appointment not have been made then?

This is not to deny that the new government has every right to install its own selected individuals in positions of trust, which go well beyond the private secretariat of every minister and parliamentary secretary. Doing that does not contradict the slogan on which the Labour Party was swept into office on March 9, ‘Malta belongs to all of us’.

As I understood it, that slogan meant that there would be no place for the savage tribalism that the Nationalist Government had operated. Aside from giving proper space to meritocracy, where posts are filled by competition, or even direct nomination, like judges and magistrates, the Government, I understood, would demonstrate that talent was to be found among all the people, not just half.

It also meant that where possible and suitable, consensus would be sought for decisions that demand that the government acts on its sole responsibility.

Examples of this approach in action have been given, such as the appointment of Dolores Cristina, until recently a Nationalist Cabinet Minister, now retired from politics, as Acting President. Similarly, the replacement of Ugo Misfud Bonnici, who did not wish to be reappointed because of creeping senior age, by former minister and Speaker Michael Frendo to be Malta’s representative on the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission.

I anticipate that, in contrast to what happened under successive Nationalist governments, the multitude of government boards and committees will be peopled by a mix of appointees, not all slavishly Labour or fellow travellers. That will take some more time.

Meanwhile, what I find intriguing is the Prime Minister’s repeated intention to appoint government MPs to executive positions. He has just confirmed he reached out to the Opposition to set that in motion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a reference in the speech the President delivered on the Government’s behalf yesterday (beyond my column filing limit). What, exactly, does that mean?

There is a very clear constitutional and practical distinction between the government and the opposition of the day. The government governs according to the programme a majority elected it to do so. The opposition, opposes. In the sense that it holds the government – which forms the political executive administration – to account for its action.

Rules and regulations provide for parliamentary committees with members from both sides to cooperate, provided they are so inclined, on specific issues. And there may be areas where there is wise consensus in the national interest, such as what was achieved over the legislation setting up Malta as a financial centre.

But in the main, the government proposes and the opposition opposes by pointing out actual or perceived shortcoming in what is proposed and hopefully putting forward alternative proposals of its own.

This model does not always work. The opposition of the day all too often opposes blindly. But it does not gain by doing so. Absolutism often does not work. It certainly did not work for former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who chose to practise it despite the tiny majority the people gave him in 2008. That does not stop politicians resorting to it.

My point is that the government forms the executive of the day. If the opposition becomes part of it, its fangs are drawn. It loses ability, a little or much, to criticise, since it cannot criticise itself. That was one of Gonzi’s errors when he used to lambast the Labour Opposition for not backing the Nationalist Government, even when it put forward the Budget proposals for 2013, the Budget debate being the main platform on which the opposition of the day declares its lack of confidence in the governing team, as all oppositions have done everywhere that governing democratically came about.

I also do not quite understand what seems set to become a trend, whereby backbenchers are given space to assist ministers without getting paid for it. Voluntary work is precious, and there are many areas in civil society where it is practised and welcomed. But the government is something else. It is based on accountability. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are accountable because they are appointed against remuneration, outdated as it is.

Voluntary assistants should not and cannot be held accountable. They can also, though that is not likely, withdraw their voluntary services at any time.

There is another argument which I make against this trend. Government action needs to be scrutinised. Nobody is perfect and even good government can be made better through objective criticism.

Do not always expect that from the opposition of the day, or from the media. But the MPs on the backbenches can provide such critical appraisal for the benefit of the government itself.

If backbenchers are assistants or advisers to ministers or parliamentary secretaries, they are not free, certainly not as free, to stand up and speak out soberly. For the good of the government and for the good of the people who elected them.

Gonzi practically ended up without an operative backbench through the ruse of creating posts as parliamentary assistants.

It would be a pity and unwelcome if Labour too skidded on the same banana.