Wednesday’s protest saw a call for parliamentarians to stand up and be counted, and to vote Joseph Muscat out of office given the latest developments in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder probe.

Whatever the arguments for or against that demand, it would have been a true sign that “the institutions are working”, as is often declared by the Prime Minister, if government backbench MPs could be  trusted to take an independent decision over holding him and other prominent government members to account. Some might believe it is the right thing to do but recent history has shown they will probably just toe the party line with no questions asked.

A recent attempt by Standards Commissioner George Hyzler to edge them closer to a state of independence of mind and autonomy of action has faltered at the first hurdle, to an obstacle erected by the government’s Principal Permanent Secretary. When the government established the post of Standards Commissioner, many had hoped this signified a rare attempt by a political administration to inject some good governance principles into those elected to serve the public.

Dr Hyzler argues that the practice of giving backbenchers government jobs and consultancy roles is “fundamentally wrong” because it damages the separation of powers. His reasoning is supported by the respected former dean of the Faculty of Laws, Kevin Aquilina, who has called the conferring of executive powers on backbenchers unconstitutional as it goes against the spirit  of good governance.

The Principal Permanent Secretary, Mario Cutajar, shot down Dr Hyzler’s sensible argument. He roped in two lawyers to prove that the practice of appointing backbenchers in positions of trust in the public sector entities was “no breach of the Constitution”.

His lawyers advised about the letter of the law. Good governance experts advise on best practice to protect the interest of the public who oil the wheels of government with their taxes.

As has now become established practice, the government resorted to the usual rituals aimed at conveying a semblance of transparency and accountability. Labour whip Byron Camilleri called on MPs to discuss the findings within Parliament’s committee for standards in public life.

It is a question of time before the recommendations of the Commissioner are shelved as political expediency once again prevails over the public interest.

Mr Cutajar resorted to the usual tactic of proving that the current practice is not new. He would have been more convincing had he argued that past practices were not in the public’s best interest and that legal safeguards should be introduced to ensure that backbenchers do not have split loyalties in holding the government to account, as is their role.

The separation of powers is a fundamental cornerstone of democratic governance. When the administrative arm gets involved in the regulatory function often represented in autonomous agencies, the public interest is sacrificed for political expediency.

The government and its regulatory agencies frequently find themselves chasing their own tails, running in circles and often even backwards.

They are riddled with conflicts of interest. They are no longer able to accomplish what they are expected to do – protect the interests of the general public.

Democracy is not just a process that gives the electorate a chance to decide who should lead them for the next five years. It is a daily commitment to do what is right at all times, even if it may not be politically convenient.