Tony Blair wrote in his autobiography, A Journal: “On May 2, 1997, I walked into Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government.” Prime Minister Joseph Muscat would probably say the same. As would Simon Busuttil.

Politicians and civil servants alike remark on how ill-prepared new ministers are for their largely unfamiliar responsibilities on taking office for the first time. Most come to their role without adequate training and experience, often with little or no expertise in the subject matter of their department, knowing that the insights and skills required to perform the job effectively may only be gained through experience “on the job”.

It is hard to think of another profession or career where an individual could rise to the very top and assume a position of heavy responsibility, having had no previous experience with that line of work. The quality of ministers is crucial. Most key policy initiatives of the past 30 years – such as Malta’s becoming a republic and its accession to the EU – have been associated with strong, determined and effective ministers. Many ministers are said to be capable because they possess some mysterious political skills, which are not possessed by non-politicians. But are political skills enough?

The characteristics of an effective minister are decisiveness and judgment. These are the essential characteristics of any good leader. The specific contribution of ministers to good government is the insight of their political philosophy and a feel for what is politically necessary, practical and acceptable.

These are also the skills required in opposition. But being a minister demands these attributes, as well as many others. Most members of the public believe that ministers’ public performances on television matter more than their ability to handle an executive role. In reality, the ability to capture political and media attention in opposition does not prepare politicians for the intense demands of ministerial life.

Effective ministers are easy to describe, but much harder to find and develop. The ideal minister – a paragon rarely found – sets clear goals; makes decisions and has good judgment; prepares and prioritises; listens to good advice; learns quickly from experience; possesses personal resilience and stamina; copes well under pressure; knows how to motivate his civil servants and his department; has authority within government and externally with Parliament, the media and the public; and achieves his objectives for political change.

I worked for Michael Heseltine, both as his spokesman and as a policy adviser. He is widely acknowledged to have been the model for an effective minister. Heseltine was unusual in becoming a highly successful businessman – an entrepreneur who created his own publishing house – before he became an MP and minister. He had clear vision and was not distracted by day-to-day trivia. He was able to translate a set of priorities into plans and to punch his weight in Cabinet.

No one who worked for him had any doubts about his priorities. He was an exceptional motivator with an unusual ability to inspire and enthuse. Yet he totally rejected the convention that ministers decide on policy while officials execute and administer it.

He was genuinely interested in management, who set objectives about how to use resources, and their implementation. He was keen to get into the detail of things, but maintained his strategic vision in relation to policy as well as understanding how to turn around an organisation.

Most ministers have virtually no previous experience of working at top level or in the management of large organisations

Erroneous comparisons of ministers are often made with the heads of private sector organisations. The differences between the private sector and business world are far-reaching in terms of experience and accountability. Most ministers – especially in Malta where the majority have a background in professions which are largely non-executive, such as the law and communications – have virtually no previous experience of working at top level or in the management of large organisations.

Rather than having straightforward legal responsibility to shareholders, ministers are subject to diverse constitutional and political constraints. They are dependent for their standing on the need to satisfy a wide range of people and groups.

Moreover, ministers have to perform a breadth of roles as good performers in Parliament, as leaders of their departments, as advocates of their department in Cabinet and in the battle for resources, and in presenting and defending their policies to the media.

Given these demands, it is hard to think of another profession or career where an individual could rise to the very top and assume a position of heavy responsibility, having had no previous acquaintance with that line of work. The result is that new ministers are ill-prepared for their new role.

While no training can prepare them for the pressure of ministerial life – only experience does that – leaving new ministers to learn on the job without any managerial or other preparatory or induction training, effectively by moving from decision to decision simply seeing how they get made, is asking for trouble.

It could be argued that ministers are individual performers, rather like successful sports stars. If this were the case, however, great sports stars like Roger Federer would have no need for coaches. Those at the top of their game have only achieved their position after many years of continuous improvement programmes. It is better to have politicians who are as prepared as they can be for the challenges they face, than those who often have to muddle through because they have not addressed gaps in their knowledge or their skill sets.

As Malta gears up for the next general election, political parties should take seriously the value of development and induction training for those aspiring to office, or even those already holding office. A number of modules could be organised by the University, or by a non-partisan think-tank like the Today Public Policy Institute, which would bring in former experienced senior ministers or senior civil servants to cover a wide range of issues.

These would include leadership and team development; managing relations with the civil service; working with civil servants (not the same thing at all); budget and resource management; the rudiments of using the machinery of government; diary management (an awful skill in Malta); understanding the links between making policy and implementing it; exploring the relationship between ministers and agencies; what it means to be effective in the job; and reflections on what it is like to be a minister.

Most importantly in the Maltese context, ethical standards and resolving conflicts of interest.

To argue that there are no systematic ways to help ministers improve their performance or prior preparation for office would be to argue that performance in the highest offices in the land is down to chance. While of course, it is impossible for any training or induction to prepare ministers for all the challenges they will face during their time in office, this does not mean prior training is a waste of time, only that its limitations should be understood.

The value of a series of training modules for aspiring or incoming ministers could be incalculable in avoiding the maladministration and misgovernment we have experienced all too often.