Meritocracy should be a social system in which success and status in life depend primarily on individual talents, abilities and efforts, and in which people advance on the basis of their merits.

Most of us would now agree that merit is no longer the primary concern for selecting an applicant for a position, more so for sensitive government positions and headships.

True, we do have a Standing Committee on Public Appointments established in 2018 and made up of three government members, one of whom will chair the committee, and two opposition members, with the power to conduct pre-appointment hearings of persons nominated for public appointments specified under the Public Administration Act.

Still, the committee’s recommendation is not binding in spite of the scrutiny being public. We have seen pre-appointment hearings of persons nominated for more than one high-profile post turn out to be a whole charade and exchange of diatribes between committee members, only for the nomination to be rubber-stamped by the government members of the day.

Equally true is the fact that the Nationalist Party had wanted the government to scrutinise persons nominated for some public post prior to their appearance before the Parliamentary Appointments Committee. But that call was never heeded and, anyway, would not have led to any significant changes to the way persons have been cleared to occupy sensitive and highly paid public posts.

Way back in 2013, we were promised a “new culture” of “meritocracy”, whereby high-ranking and top public jobs should go not to people who have connections or pedigree but to those best qualified for them, regardless of their background.

In moving towards such a meritocratic ideal, we would have imagined finally retiring the old encrustations of jobs for the party faithful and activists, together with the rampant and widespread nepotism criteria. But it was not to be.

One of the primary concerns with Maltese meritocracy is the unclear definition of merit. What is considered meritorious can differ, with opinions as to which qualities are considered the most worthy. Which merit is the highest, or, in other words, which standard is the best standard?

As the supposed effectiveness of a meritocracy is based on the supposed competence of its officials, this standard of merit cannot be arbitrary and has to also reflect the competencies required for their roles. Yet, is this what is being done in our case?

The reliability of the committee and the system that assesses each individual’s merit is another point of concern.

Rather than living in a system that espouses merit, we are living in one that exalts yes-men and lackeys- Mark Said

As a meritocratic system relies on a standard of merit to measure and compare people against, the system by which this is done has to be reliable to ensure that their assessed merit accurately reflects their potential capabilities.

Are such qualities as initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgement, commitment, nuance, goodwill, ethical reflection or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes being accurately assessed and measured when recommending people for pivotal public posts?

One of the few ambitions shared by politicians across the political spectrum should be that of creating a fully meritocratic society, in which all those who make it to the top do so only because of their own talents and abilities rather than thanks to unfair privileges.

Those privileges including having been party activists and militants, party candidates who fail to get elected, or a friendship with that minister or another.

In theory, any government of ours should have the common goal of trying to create a hierarchy based on actual ability, replacing posh, chinless halfwits with the meritorious, wherever they may be found and whatever age, colour, gender or political affiliation they might have.

Gifted and intelligent individuals should be free to express their talents on a more or less level playing field.

It is time to turn the page on a public administration scenario that is often filled with heads and CEOs who appear too weak or stupid to administer, authorities that cannot shoulder their responsibility, assistants who do not understand the basic principles of good governance and accountability, and civil servants who are brighter than their masters and know more than them. The background should no longer be an impassable obstacle to advancement.

We have for far too long subscribed to the insane and certainly arrogant assumption that ordinary humans can handily take over the solemn responsibilities that past ages more wisely left in the hands of proven, seasoned administrators. Rather than living in a system that espouses merit, equality and a level playing field, we are living in one that exalts yes-men and lackeys, or those who do not have the guts to call a spade a spade.

At this rate, any institution will inevitably be corrupted and shift the goalposts to reward those who are rote memorisation fans or otherwise obedient and thriving within a narrow scope (“useful idiots”) but not necessarily effective in life. Nepotism is turning out to be like termites on the pillars of meritocracy.

The triumph of meritocracy can only come about when deserving people are allowed to rise as far as their talent and hard work can take them. But of course, there can never be a truly meritocratic system because the ‘merit’ of an individual is far too complex and subtle to be determined by what job you have.

Mark Said is a lawyer.