Removing so many permanent secretaries at one go defies the spirit of the Constitution that lays down their position as an instrument of continuity, according to a specialist on the governance of micro states.
There is a political culture that is deeply mistrustful of anybody who appears to have loyally served somebody of an opposing political opinion
Edward Warrington said he was not happy to see most of the previous 10 permanent secretaries replaced in one fell swoop by a new Labour Government – just three were retained – as they were “part of the constitutional system of checks and balances”.
By and large the trend has been to maintain continuity. Dr Warrington said this was the first time all the permanent secretaries were immediately asked to resign – it has never happened before. It is also the first time so many were replaced.
“I can’t say I’m altogether content but nothing unconstitutional was done and I’m sure there were good reasons,” Dr Warrington, who heads the University’s Department of Public Policy, told The Sunday Times when contacted.
The Government on Tuesday announced it would be keeping just three of the 10 permanent secretaries who served under the Nationalist government and appointed another 11.
The Office of the Prime Minister said there would be a transition period and the permanent secretaries who were let go would be “utilised” in projects compatible with their grade.
This “aggressive” move was lambasted by the PN, which said politicising the civil service was an “unhealthy development”.
Dr Warrington explained that in the more distant past the role was not considered particularly clear or useful and Section 92 of the Constitution was only brought into effect by a Nationalist administration in 1992 – 30 years after the office was first provided for in the Constitution.
When Labour leader Alfred Sant became Prime Minister in 1996, he retained everybody. Joseph Grima, the principal permanent secretary at the time, was only replaced in the last three months of the short-lived administration.
When the PN took over again in 1998, nothing dramatic happened, except that Tony Mangion, who had replaced Mr Grima, resigned and Mr Grima was reinstated.
“The PN was hardly likely to make a clean sweep in an office which had been activated by Eddie Fenech Adami... who was the Prime Minister best disposed to work with the public service and to respect the idea of political neutrality,” he said.
Dr Sant had really tried to respect the aim behind this office, Dr Warrington said, but he later appeared to feel he was misguided.
Dr Warrington believes this could have been one of the main reasons why Prime Minister Joseph Muscat removed practically all the permanent secretaries once he was elected; eager to escape the legacy of his predecessor.
“It’s understandable for a new Administration to have doubts. What was imprudent, or rather hasty, was the decision to request all the permanent secretaries to resign. Instead, they could have allowed their contracts to run their course and then replace those whose loyalty or ability was in doubt,” Dr Warrington said.
“What has happened now is that almost all the permanent secretaries have been replaced. The people retained are those in very crucial roles and who hold a very good non-partisan reputation,” he added.
Permanent secretaries are normally given a three-year contract, which exposes an anomaly when considering that a government is elected for five years.
This was the difficulty faced by Dr Warrington, who has written numerous papers on the subject. He explained there was a long history behind the office of the permanent secretary.
When the office first appeared in the Constitution in 1962, both the existing heads of department and Prime Minister George Borg Olivier “objected strenuously” to the idea of having the office of permanent secretary for different reasons.
The Prime Minister was affected by the traditional hostility between politicians and career civil servants – at the time he was quoted as saying to a confidant that “there is nothing permanent under the sun”. By implication, therefore, there could not be ‘permanent’ secretaries.
On the other hand, the heads of department did not want another layer between themselves and ministers so they had petitioned the Colonial Office not to introduce permanent secretaries into Maltese public administration.
The upshot was that before Malta gained Independence in 1964, Section 92 of the Constitution, which regulates the office of the permanent secretary in a very sketchy way, was amended so that the holders of this position, which is normally filled from among senior public officers, would not enjoy any security of tenure.
Permanent secretaries are simply appointed and removed by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, given after consultation with the Public Service Commission.
Are they really the fulcrum of continuity?
“They can be if they are used properly and when you have a long administration like in the last quarter century then yes, a certain stability comes in,” he said.
In the Mediterranean, public administration has historically been very politicised and Malta was no exception albeit less so than countries such as Greece, Dr Warrington said.
“In Malta there is some element of political neutrality, but there is a political culture that is deeply mistrustful of anybody who appears to have loyally served somebody of an opposing political opinion.
“So there has always been this tendency for governments to replace people or to try to ‘colonise’ the governing institutions or public administrations.”