The Maltese electoral system, whereby candidates of the same party are pitted into competition against each other, not only breeds bad blood and foul mouthing among those that are supposedly party colleagues themselves but also ends up in a situation where the people elected to Parliament may not necessarily be the most valid candidates of the same party.

Clientelism thus rules the day in Maltese politics. And incumbent governments are not immune to it.

We all remember former Labour Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici dishing out jobs in their thousands in the run up to the 1987 election. Who can then forget Wistin Abela and his job for the boys at Air Malta?

The Nationalists do not seem to have learnt an iota from this lesson: hefty pay rises to the civil service on the eve of the election and more than 600 people employed with the government in the few months preceding it.

A political system based on clientelism means that the country suffers

The Labour Party is now also accusing the government of having dished out €3 million worth of property to sports associations on the eve of the election, with some of this property not even being government-owned.

If this were true, it would be utterly disgusting.

Vote buying is not limited to the political parties but is also widespread among certain candidates. It is an open secret that refrigerators and cutlery have been distributed during the past European Parliament elections and financial aid is also know to have been given.

Certain candidates in certain localities were renowned for being able to fix things up for you at Mater Dei Hospital before the last election while the PN is now accusing certain Labour candidates of having given Corradino inmates reason to believe that an amnesty would be possible if Malta Tagħna Lkoll (Malta For All) were voted in.

A political system based on clientelism means that the country suffers. In hospital, people qualified in a certain area are transferred to posts which have nothing to do with their area of specialisation and replaced by party aficionados who have no specialisation in the area.

The end result is that the patients and the whole system suffers.

With regard to appointments in the diplomatic corps, the payback system that involves rewarding those people who have scratched my back can lead to appointments that are certainly not suitable at all.

How can one justify the appointment of an expert in housing issues as ambassador to Washington? Will this person advise Barak Obama on the type of lodging he should look for once he quits the White House?

How does one justify the appointment of a radio announcer who is used to announcing the time of private buses leaving from the village square for party mass meetings as ambassador to Brussels? Is it perhaps because of his perfect command of the Flemish and French languages?

This leads to doubts about people who are probably highly qualified in their field. Take the case of Tony Meilaq.

Under Labour, in the 1980s, he managed to negotiate a big exit sum of money for himself were he to lose his directorship.

The Nationalists did not make use of his services and the Maltese taxpayer had to pay the penalty. During the Nationalist reign (1987-1996), Meilaq’s services were dumped.

Then, in 1996, Alfred Sant was elected Prime Minister and Meilaq was immediately nominated chairman of the Water Services Corporation and then chairman of Maltacom. But Sant lost the government in 1998. The Nationalists got back into government and Meilaq disappeared from the scene.

Now that Labour is back in government, after another 15 years in the political directorship wilderness, he has been appointed by the Muscat government first chairman of the Water Services Corporation, then chairman of ARMS Ltd.

I therefore ask myself: is it possible that Meilaq is considered an ignoramus under the Nationalists and a genius under the Labourites? Is it not possible that qualified people serve under any government? Or is it clientelism that reigns supreme?

One final sad comment. Private interest over public mandate seems to prevail even among experienced and seasoned politicians. In a reaction to a proposal by the Labour Party to have Parliament meet five times a week, from 5 till 8.30pm, Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco cautioned that such a change would create pressure on both employee-management relations and professionals, for whom it would be a peak time for seeing clients.

By saying such things De Marco is basically admitting that for a number of parliamentarians their first concern is their private job and not their public mandate. How very sad.

arnoldcassola@gmail.com

Arnold Cassola is chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party.