So much for ‘meritocracy’…

With so much going for the Labour Party's campaign at the moment, about the last thing one would have expected is for Joseph Muscat to simply hand the Nationalists an electoral trump card on a silver platter.

Yet this is what Muscat appeared to do this week: when, flanked by a beaming Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, he announced that he would retain the former PN MP (now an independent backbencher, and widely acknowledged to be a right royal pain in his former party's neck) as chair of the Malta Council for Science and Technology if elected on 9 March.

The announcement was almost immediately overshadowed by fresh revelations on the oil scandal. But those who paid attention would have immediately noticed an apparent contradiction between Muscat's declaration at MCST, and a promise on the PL's own electoral manifesto to revise the way such appointments are traditionally made.

This proposal even floats the idea of making such appointments subject to a popular vote - though whether this would apply specifically to this post, or just to public representatives on government boards, is not immediately clear.

But what raised eyebrows was not so much Muscat's departure from the script of his own electoral programme... it was the curious way he singled out only one individual appointee, and not any others.

In fact, the question arises almost automatically. How many other PN-appointed officials will similarly be retained by a new Labour government? And on what criteria, exactly?

Going only on the MCST confirmation, the answer to the second question seems fairly straightforward. Admittedly, there is no reason to doubt Pullicino Orlando's credentials to chair a council for science and technology; but it will not have escaped noticed that the same Pullicino Orlando has also proved (wittingly or unwittingly) a useful 'ally' to the Labour opposition over the past two or three years. 

Having been lionised by the PN media at the time of the Mistra scandal (i.e., right before the 2008 election), the man who arguably snatched victory for the PN from the jaws of defeat has since evolved into something of an albatross around Lawrence Gonzi's neck. Not only was it Pullicino Orlando's 'bolt from the blue' that led to an acrimonious divorce referendum campaign (which, let's face it, hardly worked to the PN's advantage); but the Zebbug dentist also fired a veritable torpedo into the Castille engine room, by voting with the Opposition on a motion that spelt an end to Richard Cachia Caruana's role as Malta's ambassador to the EU.

The full impact of these two issues alone - and there were others, including his opposition to the St John's Co-cathedral project, all the way back to the Siggiewi cement factory proposal in the 1990s - is perhaps too extensive to describe in detail here.

Suffice it to say that Pullicino Orlando went on to be demonised by the PN's media machine, and while he never quite crossed the Rubicon altogether (preferring to resign from the party but retain his parliamentary seat) efforts were continually made by PN-friendly bloggers to portray him as the Labour Party's 'secret weapon'.

For this reason alone, Muscat's sudden confirmation that the same Pullicino Orlando will be retained as MCST chairman - and especially the timing of that confirmation - was decidedly inauspicious. In the eyes of a wider public that has come to view such decisions with increasing cynicism, it is difficult to dispel the notion that Muscat may have been merely formalising an unspoken 'agreement' with the former government MP: a sort of quid pro quo, whereby Pullicino Orlando (according to this interpretation, at any rate) was 'rewarded' for having caused so many problems for the government he once formed part of.

Naturally there is another interpretation which portrays the Labour leader in a much more positive light. This version has it that, unlike Gonzi, Muscat recognises the merit in people, and takes his decisions according to those merits.

But if this is the case: why just Pullicino Orlando? Will Muscat also retain other government appointees, whom his own party has criticised in the past?

Besides, Muscat's timing was significant for another reason. At present, the PN seems to be too engrossed in the exchange of corruption allegations to properly capitalise on this apparent faux-pas - and it is equally possible that the party which rode into power on the strength of the Mistra affair, may not wish to remind the electorate of its own antics before the 2008 election.

And yet, up to a certain extent, the issue of political interference in public appointments is arguably more dimly perceived than even corruption by the greater electorate - mainly because, unlike the arcane world of commodity-trading (most of which remains invisible 99% of the time), such appointments are not only fully visible to the man in the street... but they can also have a direct impact on popular trust-levels in government.

People who feel they are better qualified for any given job (or who know people who are better qualified) resent being by-passed in favour of less deserving candidates... and unlike the general reaction to corruption, it is the sort of resentment that is felt on a personal level.

Much more seriously, the culture of appointing 'government-friendly' individuals to sensitive posts also creates a groundswell feeling of helplessness in the face of a complex network of intertwined allegiances. Ultimately it contributes to a pervasive sensation that there is no point putting oneself forward for any public position, as these will invariably be hogged by the party in government, and handed out to its 'friends'.

As a result, there is an undeniable feeling at street-level that the key qualification to be eligible for such posts is nothing more party allegiance (a perception that, it must be said, has been cemented time and again by the Nationalist administration).

It was this same perception that the Labour Party had clearly set its sights on, when it proposed reforming the system to give the electorate a greater say in electing public officials. And ironically, it is the same perception that the Labour Party has unconscionably ended up strengthening, by underscoring in public that political 'favours' to the Labour Party (real or perceived) will be rewarded in kind by a future Labour government.

And granted, in this case the appointment may even be thoroughly deserved. But still - the way it was decided does not exactly bode well for the future of meritocracy in Malta.