The head of the Civil Service, Principal Permanent Secretary Mario Cutajar, recently addressed a press conference to announce the regeneration of Valletta’s indoor market.

Given that the head of the civil service is dealing, by his own definition, with a public service which has “an existing leadership crisis”, it is remarkable that he finds the time to be the chairman of a working group focused on “regeneration projects in Valletta”, a bread-and-butter task most other heads of civil service would leave to their technical experts. One would have thought there were more important matters on his plate than the regeneration of is-Suq.

More importantly, however, when he was taken to task about this by Opposition justice spokesman Jason Azzopardi, the principal permanent secretary issued a statement which was deemed to be politically partisan and overstepping the realms of an apolitical and non-partisan civil servant.

The spat raises questions about the role of a supposedly neutral civil service in our democracy. In advanced parliamentary democracies, based, as Malta’s, on the Westminster model, an ethical public service should stand committed to neutrality of process, that is, one which is impartial and non-partisan.

There is an intrinsic difference in the way politicians and public officials operate. The civil service is an evidence-driven profession but politics is not. Politics is, above all, the art of mobilising prejudice. Reason, on the other hand, is the enemy of prejudice.

A good civil servant should always represent impartiality. He should eschew prejudice. Political will is not everything and loyalty to a political master, though vital, should not override neutrality of process. A good civil servant – as also a good minister – must respect the evidence presented and seek the ultimate public interest.

These two factors should dictate the difference of approach between politicians and civil servants. However, the line between the two can sometimes become blurred and in the contretemps between Mr Cutajar and Dr Azzopardi this is clearly what happened.

The civil service is an evidence-driven service. The advice it should proffer its political masters – and the government and Opposition politicians it deals with – should be based on impartiality. Constant care has to be taken to prevent political partisanship.

Ministers and Opposition spokesmen are elected while the head of the civil service is appointed. This demands a certain deference in the way he deals with elected politicians, even those not forming part of the government. The trouble arises where exchanges become politicised, as in the case of the regeneration of Valletta’s indoor market. In conjunction with the capacity to pursue any ministerial course loyally, the head of the civil service must also be aware of the wider public interest which the Opposition has every right to express. In Malta, where politics is so polarised, the need for tact and restraint by civil servants goes to the heart of good governance.

Against this background, there are two lessons to be learned from the spat between Mr Cutajar and Dr Azzopardi: first, the importance of the head of the civil service not crossing the line between neutrality of process and partisan political involvement. Secondly, the need for him not to become embroiled in a public shouting match with an Opposition spokesman. That should have been left to his political master: the Parliamentary Secretary for Planning.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.