Editorial: William Marcy to Abela’s defence
The practice of basing appointments on merit has been thrown out of the window
Under Robert Abela, kicking upstairs or sideways those who somehow get in the way has become more common than regular government recruitment. As he struggles for political survival, Abela is not bothered if he increasingly looks like a ‘fixer’ rather than a leader with a clear vision.
However he tries to sell it, the way the government appoints people to public office cannot be considered as seeking the best available talent but, rather, rewarding Labour Party acolytes, giving them a ‘golden handshake’ or ‘buying their silence’.
The list has become so long that attempting to mention all names risks overlooking quite a few. The appointment of outgoing Labour CEO Randolph Debattista as an ambassador and Jason Micallef as party ‘special delegate’ within a day are only the latest examples.
For more than a decade now, the practice of basing appointments on merit has been thrown out of the window.
Instead, the spoils system is now the preferred selection method.
The spoils system is a political term that was coined in the US, although it is common in many countries. It was already practised there as early as 1812, but it was William L. Marcy, then senator and later governor of New York, who gave it prominence. At the time, spoils in politics referred to political appointments.
In a speech defending appointments made by the seventh US president, Andrew Jackson, Marcy exclaimed in 1832: “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.” Abela may well find a good advocate in Marcy.
Political appointments, whether in the form of persons of trust or in some other manner, has become a serious issue in this country, sparking numerous calls, even by international bodies, to address it. In healthy democracies, competence and merit are given top priority. The performance and behaviour of individuals can have a significant impact on how effective public administration is, how legally and ethically correct its operations are and, as a result, to what extent it can be trusted by the public.
In healthy democracies, competence and merit are given top priority
There are many telltale signs in the country showing very clearly that we are far from having a well-functioning public administration with all institutions willing and able to do their duty.
This increases, not lessens, the need to give weight to the integrity, transparency and moral standing of appointees to public office. They need to be free from corruption, not have a conflict of interest, and not behave in an unethical manner.
Of course, loyalty comes into the picture too. However, this can never be considered as being the overriding and only ‘competence’. It is even worse when an appointment is made merely for political convenience.
Public appointments made directly by the head of government, or the ruling party solely based on party loyalty or convenience are the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not democratic administrations. In addition to reputational damage, the adoption of the spoils system discourages talented individuals with the skills Malta needs, possibly contributing to a brain drain. Sadly, research shows that is already happening.
It is also likely to disappoint ‘loyal’ supporters who feel marginalised by their own party, especially as the choices are made from within the same group that keeps “pigging out”. How many more jobs can we keep pulling out of thin air and handing to the same individuals whose only qualifications are party loyalty and a knack for making threats?
The spoils system often leads to corruption, as the daily scandals prove.
If Abela is inspired by Marcy, the merit system will never be the cornerstone of public administration. Instead, we will have a situation where the most politically connected or who barefacedly threaten to upset the apple cart are given all the top appointments.