When, on being elected with a landslide majority, the Labour government appointed a staunch Labour supporter as head of the civil service, it sent out the wrong message right from the start.
In rushing headlong to appoint former General Workers’ Union official Mario Cutajar, the administration acted insensitively. Furthermore, it gave the impression from day one that the government was out to favour people from its own ranks for appointments.
As it turned out, Labour soon jettisoned its own meritocracy pledge and started doing what all administrations had done before it – generally picking people from its own political ranks for appointments both directly in the public service and also in authorities and boards.
Leaving one or two Nationalist Party supporters in key posts in no way erased the fact that Labour generally failed to keep its own pledge, and, like its predecessors, is resorting to patronage. Not only that, but it appears as if it is overloading the service when the need is to make it leaner.
In his latest report, Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino threw the spotlight on recruitment in the service and referred to what he called the vague definition of “position of trust”. It was obvious, he remarked, that broadening the definition could lead to allegations of abuse and discrimination.
Ministers do have a right to appoint people of trust to draft and ensure the implementation of policies laid down in their party’s electoral programme but it would seem that the term “position of trust” is much abused by successive administrations.
The Ombudsman said it had long been thought that the number of these appointments, made directly by ministers to form part of the core workforce of secretariats, had to be restricted. In recent years, however, the demarcation line between the recruitment of officials in the civil service and of those with the ministries was becoming increasingly blurred.
Direct appointments were not being made just at the top level but in the lower grades as well. In resorting to this, he said, a government might be seen as trying to avoid following established statutory procedures meant to ensure fairness, non-discrimination and transparency in recruitment. In truth, however, the influx of political appointees has changed the face of the civil service over the years.
In the interest of accountability, it is time for every administration to start giving an account of the number of people appointed to positions of trust. How many such appointees are there in each ministry? What positions do they occupy? What is the size and cost of each ministerial secretariat? How many direct appointments have been made in lower grades? Since these workers are paid out of taxpayers’ money, people have a right to know. The Ombudsman made an interesting observation.
He said that, in some respects, even if in a limited manner, the country was gradually moving towards an American style of government where a change of administration could lead to a change of staff loyal to it. He said it was up to the politicians to decide which system was best for Malta. For a country of Malta’s size, a wholesale change of this nature is likely to cause too much disruption and it is also likely that, in the process, the civil service will lose some of its best brains. Such a state of affairs suits nobody.