In a recent interview with Deutsche Welle, Foreign Minister Evarist Bartolo made the heart-wrenchingly honest assertion that in Malta, the bonds of family and friends are often more important than the rule of law, and that this now had to change.

If the political class – and here I am referring to both main parties, though the onus falls more heavily on the Labour Party as the party currently in power – is serious about change, it has to cover appointments to the civil service more broadly, as the judiciary cannot function as an island separate from the rest of the public sector.

Appointments to the civil service have for a long time been an important part of patronage politics in Malta, even though one would have expected them to decrease with modernisation and EU membership. Positions which in many other countries are filled based on open competition and merit are here given to the party faithful.

To use the example of Bartolo’s own ministry since a few weeks back, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, appointments have, under both Labour and the Nationalists, been made in what could euphemistically be called an ad hoc manner, sometimes based on competence, sometimes on strict party affiliation, and at times on a combination of the two.

During my years following the ministry from a certain distance, I have seen highly qualified persons given important roles. But I have also seen equally qualified individuals sidelined in the crudest of fashions due to party affiliation. Likewise, I have witnessed both parties appoint people with extremely little experience or knowledge of international affairs to top positions.

It might be retorted that this happens in other countries too. Malta has seen its fair share of US ambassadors on what have basically been sunshine postings for large donors to the sitting president’s campaigns (be he Democrat or Republican).

There are two important differences between Malta and the US however. First, US political appointments tend to be restricted to Ambassadorships, and do not usually concern other diplomatic staff. Second, the US State Department has a large home base in Washington with expertise and manpower, and more importantly still, the diplomatic missions are very large.

Malta is under-utilising its small pool of talented and highly- qualified human resources

We are not talking about one plus one (ambassador plus one other diplomat) missions here, but about missions many times larger, even in the smallest countries. Needless to say, one can better afford to have a less-than-competent figurehead with that type of professional backing. In addition, even with a marginally skilled ambassador, a powerful country such as the US will not be easily sidelined.

In Malta, two arguments are often made by both sides in defence of the status quo (and here I am not including the defence that “the other side is doing it too” – we all learn at a tender age that two wrongs do not make a right).

The first argument is that Malta is so small that it is difficult to avoid – people always know each other. I always found this argument somewhat difficult to understand. It is arguably easier to choose ‘friends of friends’ in a bigger country where the pool of candidates is larger: if you can choose between 10 equally well-qualified persons, why not choose the friend of the friend who might return you the service? After all, it is less conspicuous.

In Malta, it would be much easier to justify, also in front of friends, choosing the most competent, as the choice is often quite clear and unequivocal. Instead, what we have been and are still seeing is basically that party people regularly benefit from a quota, or affirmative action (depending on the terminology used): they are chosen over and above the most competent.

The second argument is the most difficult: that patronage is deeply rooted in Maltese ‘culture’. ‘Culture’, however, is never monolithic. A society is made up of a plurality of ways of being and beliefs of what is acceptable. Malta is no exception in this regard. Rejection of patronage and corruption cuts across both main parties. In fact, we have seen the perhaps most important splits within the parties on this very issue.

So clearly, there is no monolithic Maltese culture accepting patronage and corruption. Leadership is important here, and evidently it has not been in either party faithful’s interest to root out the structures of patronage.

In addition, cultures change. We need not look further than France on the northern shore of the Mediterranean for a current radical cultural shift in the making. The home of the crime passionnel, a culture where la séduction has traditionally been ever-present in interactions from the boulangerie to the boardroom, is seeing a serious questioning of these norms.

Femicides and sexual misconduct, including sexual predation targeting very young girls, are consistently high on the political agenda. In short, just because something has been acceptable does not mean that it always will be.

Malta is small. Just as heartbreaking as it was to see our foreign minister obliged to make the striking mea culpa on international television, so it is heartbreaking to see Malta under-utilising its small pool of talented and highly-qualified human resources.

So at the mercy of international events and forces, Malta can ill afford it.

Anna Khakee is head of the University’s Department of International Relations