The creation of a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life was welcomed as a first step in ensuring members of parliament live up to the gravitas required by their role. The commissioner has jurisdiction over ministers, parliamentary secretaries, MPs and “persons of trust”.

A lot can be said about the very existence of such persons of trust. The recently-coined term has effectively normalised the hiring of friends and acquaintances in top government positions, a practice that ought to have been eliminated by promises of meritocracy.

But even when it comes to our MPs, the commissioner will find his hands full. George Hyzler operates in a political arena where the participants leave a lot to be desired in terms of governance. From the misuse of funds and the blurring of the lines between state and party (or minister and candidate), to government press statements used for partisan mileage, he has a sizeable workload to deal with.

There is a marked difference in the decorum of modern politicians too. Their prototype is that of young ambitious men who have climbed the party structures or local councils at astonishing speed to find themselves becoming ministers at a relatively young age. But while age is not an indication of quality, the dubious behaviour of some cabinet ministers leaves one to wonder whether it is an indication of maturity.

Recently, Transport Minister Ian Borg was embroiled in the issue of whether he blasphemed on TV or not, with the commissioner eventually deeming it a slip of the tongue. Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri has, perhaps unwittingly, indirectly endorsed a private entity by featuring in a TV advertisement for a Gozitan wedding video producer.

These two ministers’ public statements should also be scrutinised. Both ministers have seen a lot more criticism from civil society groups than from the opposition, however, they have not only refused dialogue but have openly tried to attack these NGOs as troublemakers if not traitors of the state. Such language from a minister is even less acceptable than blasphemy on TV.

The recent debate about the introduction of female quotas has highlighted how this measure appears positive yet half-baked. The aim of having more women participate in politics is surely noble, however, this should not be an artificial, mathematical provision that avoids culture change.

This reform will show itself to be short-sighted if more people of a low calibre are lured into politics. The issues of nepotism and corruption will not disappear with a bigger parliament.

In this regard, the country should be discussing alternatives such as the removal of the electoral districts, which allow any politician to exert excessive influence over his ‘home’ district.

The move to a full-time parliament and the complete abolition of any business or commercial interests for MPs and their spouses would also contribute to tackling nepotism. This measure would also encourage the participation of non-professionals in the political forum, thus breaking the cycle of lawyers, architects, economists and doctors occupying the majority of parliamentary seats.

Instead of quotas at a parliamentary level, political parties could be made to encourage female participation in their own ranks. But they should also be the catalysts for culture change. Political parties should look beyond tokenism and lead by example.

Both parties have shied away from taking strong stances on misogyny and domestic violence. Their attempt to involve more women in politics should be matched by a serious effort to tackle these issues, to ensure equality between women and men in society.

And before introducing cosmetic measures in politics, serious attempts should be made to raise standards and the calibre of the people who occupy public office.