A crucial objective of representative democracy is to ensure proper representation, equity and the relentless voice of citizens of all constituencies in government.
Political horse-trading is ingrained in most democratic systems. At times, this ensures that the winner-takes-all mindset of most political parties that have a majority in parliament does not result in partisan opportunism that excludes minority parties from any institutional roles. But political horse-trading can come at high costs for society.
Most appointments to public office are still characterised by partisan opportunism by the party in government. Mainly as a result of pressure from foreign institutions, some more critical appointments, like those of the ombudsman and the standards commissioner, must, in theory, be made by consensus between the government and the opposition.
The endemic unhealthy polarisation that afflicts Malta’s political life has again failed to put people’s interests first. While the government and opposition have agreed on the person who should fill the vacancy of ombudsman, no agreement has been struck on the standards commissioner post.
The government is now adopting the anti-deadlock rule to appoint the next commissioner by presenting a motion in parliament that a simple majority can ultimately approve.
Prime Minister Robert Abela argues that the mechanism is necessary to prevent the opposition from blocking the appointment of a critical parliamentary official for partisan reasons. The opposition says it will vote against the nomination of former chief justice Joseph Azzopardi to the post while failing to give an official reason for doing so.
This bickering between the political parties on such an essential issue only increases the loss of faith that an increasing section of the electorate has in how politics is managed. Many ordinary people are just not interested in who occupies key institutional posts. But others become even more cynical about the maturity of the political class, who seem more interested in scoring political points than promoting the common good.
Some unwritten fallacies underpin the principles of horse-trading in politics. One of these fallacies is that public posts of importance are almost always reserved for individuals labelled as supporters or militants of a particular party.
This goes against the principle of promoting meritocratic criteria for selection. It excludes a large section of competent individuals who keep their political beliefs to themselves but are fully capable of working for the common good.
Another fallacy is that individuals once involved in politics with a particular party are considered persona non grata by the political party they did not support. This only helps to prevent many professional and capable persons from considering politics as a career. It also partly explains the persistent mediocrity of the local political class.
Politics is essential to make people’s lives better. For this to succeed, we need the best people to occupy crucial posts in the institutions which are the rock base of a functioning democracy.
When horse-trading to decide who is best qualified to occupy key public positions ends in partisan opportunism, the public pays the high costs of a polarised political system.
Sensible negotiations to ensure that all voices are heard in our society must come from a political class that is genuinely committed to the common good.
Sadly, this is much more than having well-written policies that often fail because of the political leaders’ divisive mindsets.