Muscat’s promised change is for the worse

One may agree or disagree with Simon Busuttil’s stand against Opposition backbenchers taking up executive roles. It is not altogether strange either for the Government or, even more so, for the Labour Party, to describe this as a negative attitude.

But what is glaringly negative and what many in the country are discussing right now is Joseph Muscat’s highly divisive approach to the appointment of people to key posts. This runs directly against all that Dr Muscat spoke about in his pre-election talk. Some of the moves are so divisive that they represent a leap backward, not forward, in politics.

No administration has ever been able to do away with patronage and political appointments. Practically every political party contesting a general election promises transparency, meritocracy and accountability but these fine pledges are often forgotten in no time when a new administration installs itself after winning an election.

Yet, perhaps in no other general election had a politician been as convincing as Dr Muscat has been in promising what may be called as the three basic ‘desirables’ in politics. Of course, there are other desirables, such as honesty and a passion to take a political career as a mission rather than as one to promote self-interest. However, these are generally taken for granted.

The new Labour leader promised big changes and people believed him. When the Nationalist Party accused the Government of politicising the civil service by replacing all but three of the permanent secretaries, many Labour supporters immediately jumped to their party’s defence, arguing that the Nationalist Party in government could hardly claim it had not appointed its own people in top posts. Which is true.

When, in turn, the Nationalists accused Labour of handing out hundreds of jobs before each and every election in their time, the Labour Party replied in kind, saying that Nationalist governments did the same.

Dr Muscat is not the first or last politician to pledge transparency, meritocracy and accountability. But is it not rather disconcerting to see transparency and meritocracy getting lost in transition so soon after the election?

Dr Muscat may have had all the good intentions in the world when he proclaimed his beliefs during the election campaign but he is not living up to expectations, at least up to now.

He carried the message with such personal conviction that it was hard not to believe him. Yet, in its honeymoon days, the party is already being strongly accused of faltering in one of the key pledges it had made to the electorate.

Dr Muscat promised to do things differently, yet, he has made appointments that are bound to continue to fan divisiveness, something that runs diametrically contrary to the Malta Taghna Lkoll (Malta For All) slogan. The latest one is that of the chairman of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development.

As to the civil service, that has its faults, but it has proved its worth, reliability and loyalty between one administration and another. The public service and companies run or controlled by the Government need less, not more, politicisation if Dr Muscat wants to ensure that they continue to serve the country well.

While it is understandable that certain top appointments are political in nature, it would be self-defeating if the new administration goes about the exercise acting like a bull in a china shop, as it is doing. Up to now, the change Dr Muscat promised is for the worse, not better.