A few weeks ago (November 4, 2015), I proposed that Parliament issues a public call for applications for the position of Parliamentary Ombudsman. Taking up such a proposal would require a change in culture, which I suspect is needed in our country.

We must move beyond a situation where positions are given to people known to those in power, based on their own considerations, whatever these may be.

We must move towards a system accepted and embraced by all stakeholders, where the people with the correct credentials are appointed to occupy the positions which fall vacant over time. This can only be done by public calls for applications, followed by a fair, transparent, objective selection processes.

No system is foolproof, but this should go some way towards ensuring that taxpayers get true value for the money they part with. Needless to say, I am not referring to positions of special trust, but this term too should be given the narrowest interpretation possible.

The same argument may be extended beyond calls to fill vacant positions such as the one I mentioned in my article. It is indeed of concern to read in this newspaper that architects criticising the lighting of the Auberge de Castille “were reluctant to go on record fearing possible political backlash which might affect their business” (November 5, 2015).

Are politicians the only ones to blame for this system, or are citizens also to blame, for expecting something in return for their vote?

Such a fear can be interpreted as indicating that contractual assignments are awarded to those with the correct political credentials, and not to the most competent and deserving. This fear, whether real or perceived, is of grave concern.

Claire Bonello (November 15, 2015), in my opinion correctly, considers Sandro Chetcuti to have been rude and crude but truthful when he described the two political parties as two big shops. This leads me to ask, at what level is the change in attitude required? Is it enough for political parties to change their approach and to undertake to stop exchanging promises for votes, positions for votes, direct orders and goodness knows what else for votes?

Are politicians the only ones to blame for this system, or are citizens also to blame, for expecting something in return for their vote, and for offering their vote to the politician or political party who will give or promise the most in return?

Nobody can prevent an individual for voting for somebody for his own personal motives. On the other hand, for so long as political parties rely on private financing, can the system change at all? Can the political parties be viewed as anything other than shops if they collect money and rely on us, on private contributions from the public, for funding? Will anybody part with their money for no reason at all?

Government financing of political parties, coupled with the long-awaited law on political party finances, might help alleviate the situation, just as transparent, public calls for tenders for services, as opposed to direct orders, and open public calls for the filling of certain positions of national importance could too. In short, no more favours at any level.

It is up to the political class to foster the necessary changes, because they are the decisions makers and the lawmakers.

Whether they do so, or whether they continue to hold on to the current status quo, will indicate where their priorities truly lie.

Ivan Mifsud is a senior lecturer, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Laws, University of Malta.