The running gag in the old BBC series Yes, Minister was that of a civil service which can draw on its extensive experience to outwit its ‘political masters’. The minister may be well-meaning but his subordinates always know one better and, above all, know all his political weaknesses and how to manipulate him.
In real life, the risk is really in the other direction: that a civil service, which in a developed economy and a mature democracy we expect to be independent and impartial, becomes an extension of the government of the day. Sure, there needs to be political guidance given by politicians, but the detailed technical matters are best left to the technocrats.
It follows that, while for politicians it’s all about the democratic mandate they receive from the electorate, for the technocrats it’s a question of choosing the people with the experience and knowledge required.
Malta’s best interests in Europe can only be assured if our government can rely on advice that is free of political interference and discrimination. For EU membership has added a new and fundamental role for our civil service: to represent our country at all levels of negotiations in the Council of Ministers. The smallest national public administration in the EU is tasked with sending well-briefed officials to attend 130 Council working parties as well as hundreds of consultation and expert groups convened by the European Commission.
It’s Malta’s loss if it is represented by people who are not chosen because they are the most competent, or the most experienced, or the most knowledgeable but only because they happen to have the right political loyalties. You need to be a deft negotiator at the EU level, and going there with nothing more than bluster about “safeguarding Malta’s interests” is not going to get you very far.
The Venice Commission, tasked by the Council of Europe to report on Malta’s ailing governance culture, felt it had to comment on one of the ways in which our civil service is going partisan: the many ‘positions of trust’ that have been created in the past years.
Of course, a sensible and limited number of positions of trust are essential when political direction is required. But there is only so much salt you can add to your broth before it starts tasting of seawater. Under Labour, appointments based on trust have been of such a number that one can fairly speak of a parallel public administration, paid from the public purse, which may not be employing the country’s best and brightest.
Instead of empowering the public service and its professionality, the government is clearly working in the opposite direction
It is no wonder that civil servants who were appointed following transparent calls and a competitive process find that their jobs and the development of their careers has been stunted. They are feeling the heat and, quite expectedly, not liking it. In my campaign as a candidate for the European Parliament elections I am meeting several professionals telling me how they were sidelined and their experience lost.
The Nationalist Party has put a parliamentary question to government to better understand the dimension of this phenomenon. The Prime Minister needs more time to collect the data.
The recent controversy around that infamous Central Bank party, which ended in viva l-Labour chants, is another pointer in this direction. I am absolutely convinced that virtually all Central Bank employees and management want to safeguard the reputation and impartiality of this fundamental institution for Malta’s economic governance. And yet, the chants happened, as is clear from the many messages I get from several sources.
This goes to show that abstract good will does not guarantee an independent and professional public service. More is needed to ensure that.
What is particularly worrying is that instead of empowering the public service and its professionality, the government is clearly working in the opposite direction. Some months ago, a Public Administration Bill was published and was greeted with immediate criticism from the unions. They are concerned about the inordinate power assigned to the Prime Minister in determining conditions of work and, in a return to darker times, the full validity of instructions issued verbally. The Equality Commission also chimed in, complaining that the bill does not give due weight to the fundamental values of equality and non-discrimination.
European elections are rightly seen as an opportunity to choose the best people to represent us as MEPs. We should also take it as an opportunity to discuss more widely what needs to be done to ensure a more effective representation of Maltese interests in Brussels.
In my lectures on EU decision-making I emphasise the need to tackle our national objectives with parallel lobbying in the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.
On the Council and Commission side we rely on our public service to represent the best technical arguments supported by the personal and professional credibility of the public servant proposing such ideas. That credibility is generally not guaranteed by those who could only say, “Yes, Minister”.
Dr Peter Agius is a PN candidate for the European elections, former head of the European Parliament Office and cabinet member of the President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani.