With one controversial issue after another stealing the headlines, few must have bothered to read reports of all that was said during the recent public service week about what the government expects of civil servants. People know exactly what they expect of the civil service.
Problem is, with the ever-growing infiltration of political appointees, staff can easily become demotivated and discouraged from performing at their best, or do all that is expected of them for fear of incurring the wrath of their political masters now solidly embedded in ministerial secretariats.
Joseph Muscat zeroed in on the kernel of the problem when he said: “It is normal for people to hesitate in a free society where they are continuously scrutinised, including by the media, but we have to find a mechanism through which public officials do not fear any backlash when faced with certain decisions.” He argued there was a difference between a wrong decision taken with good intentions and other wrong decisions.
This makes sense on paper, but in an environment that is getting to be more, not less, politicised, it will always be difficult to establish when an intention is good or bad.
The situation has worsened because, contrary to what Dr Muscat preached before the last general election, he has not only adopted the same system in place before, that is, during the time of the Nationalist Part in government, but appears to have expanded it even further.
The Ombudsman was right when he expressed concern about the fact that, under both the Nationalist and Labour administrations, the demarcation line between engagement in the public service and engagement in ministerial secretariats has become blurred. Appointing people that are trusted inan advisory capacity or to ensure the implementation of a party’s electoral programme may be acceptable, but overloading secretariats with a cadre of party faithful is not.
When the issue was raised last November, this newspaper asked a number of what it feels are most pertinent questions. None has been answered, proof that the government has yet to put flesh to the bones of its election mantra that it aimed at raising the level of accountability.
Arguing that it was time for every administration to make known the number of people occupying ‘positions of trust’, the newspaper asked: How many such appointees are there in each ministry today? 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?
One or two other questions may be added to the list. How many people have been appointed to “positions of trust” in government-owned or controlled bodies? And how many have been appointed in departments, other than in secretariats?
Despite the invidiousness that such appointments generate, Dr Muscat said the mentality in the service was changing though there was still much to do.
If, as he says, the culture change required in the civil service can only be brought about through a collective effort, the first step ought to be taken by the government itself.
It can do this by first restricting the inflow into the service of politically appointees. This may sound unthinkable when Labour has already reneged on its commitment over meritocracy. However, the kind of culture change the Prime Minister is seeking will take longer to come about, if it all, if each and every administration continues to regard ministerial secretariats as the recruitment ground for their own people.