The art of government is best learned through experience. Which means that an incoming government with little accumulated experience will find it difficult to get quickly into its stride.

It has to have time to pass through the early ropes and in the process might understandably make more than its shared quota of normal mistakes. That is proving true in the case of this government in regard to some of the appointments it made on assuming office.

The larger number of these appointments consisted of filling positions of trust, starting with the chiefs of staff and private offices.

The Nationalist Opposition raised a big hullabaloo about those appointments. In the process it forgot not only that this is normal and necessary procedure when there is a change of government, but also that former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi had stuffed every nook and cranny of appointments in the whole public sector with Nationalists or fellow-travellers.

He did so, moreover, notwithstanding the fact that he had won the 2008 general election with a mere handful of votes, less than a third of the average MP’s quota.

One of the main appointments made over a year ago was that of Commissioner of Police.

In the context of talk suggesting that senior police officers had declined the appointment, the government went on to bring in a former police officer. The appointment was immediately shot down by the Opposition who proceeded to hound the new commissioner at every turn. It did, however, have its merits.

The government had brought in a man who was well experienced in the workings of the police force but who had been out of it for a while. He was, therefore, not ‘factory blind’ and could bring new verve where it was needed.

One should presume that the government had done its research well and was convinced of its decision. That notwithstanding, with barely a year gone the new commissioner has become a has-been.

He has, so to say, moved on to a new security position which – it takes little imagination to understand this – had been hastily conceived as a face saver. The conclusion that must follow is that the government, and specifically the Prime Minister, was not convinced that the man chosen for such high office a year ago had been doing a good enough job.

There should not be ambiguity in government, least of all where it concerns top posts

His integrity was beyond doubt, otherwise he would not have been given the newly created (and rather ambiguous) security job. But the hoped-for credentials necessary to be commissioner had not been achieved.

Not a disaster and certainly better to realise that a change was needed and to make it now, no matter how controversial.

But the way the change was made added to the controversy.

A senior respected serving official, acting as director of prisons, was appointed as acting commissioner.

Why the “acting” role? Why is this key position being further mired by apparent indecision?

One reason could be that the now acting commissioner does not want the job on a permanent basis, and that the government needs time to think more deeply. Sixteen months in office, and with the experience of one wrong choice, may be deemed long enough to learn what qualities are required, resting on ability.

The position should be clarified. There should not be ambiguity in government, least of all where it concerns top posts. And that of Police Commissioner is definitely a top post.

On top of the extraordinarily hard normal requirements of the position, the current Police Commissioner is deeply involved in the issue regarding former European commissioner John Dalli, which is again topping the public agenda.

The position of the police in it is not clear, certainly not as much as it should be.

More light needs to be shed.

There is much to be done. Having two former police commissioners in the broad scheme of things is not the best scenario to do it. But done it must be.

The government should come up with a permanent appointment, endowing the commissioner as he ought to be endowed, without further delay.