Regrettably amateurish

The threats to democracy in Malta have long been brewing. Attacks on a free press, scapegoating others and delegitimising political opposition were all ways to contribute to a transition back to authoritarianism, if that was the present government’s goal. But there are other ways! You can also hasten the decline of democracy by supporting the rapid rise to power of a political amateur.

More and more Maltese are becoming eager to see either political outsiders or politicians who are ready to put the people ahead of their careers. That sentence should be pretty chilling if you think about it. The idea that politicians’ ambition is possibly no longer compatible with pursuing good public policy is disturbing and may be at least partially true, but, if so, that is a bug and not a feature of past robust democratic institutions.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and it is not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic — what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. It is not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

Those who know more about politics are more likely to embrace democratic values like political tolerance. These differences are, of course, observed within the general population, not among people who are interested enough in politics to think about running for office. What we have seen so far from an administration that lacks political experience is an accompanying lack of regard for democratic values, especially ones about legitimate opposition and criticism of the government.

It is clear that Maltese politics has some issues. Confidence in institutions is low. Economic inequality threatens the basis of the ‘Maltese vision’. Our criminal justice system has problems. Our House of Representatives seems stuck, unable to address issues from the environment to the budget. Lots of people feel they do not have much of a political voice.

But the impulse to concentrate a lot of power in the hands of people who do not know what they are doing is not going to improve Maltese democracy. These problems require expertise, an appreciation for political nuance and an understanding of the tensions inherent in democratic governance. These alone are probably not enough to fix our system.

From dentistry to plumbing, midwifery to air traffic control, there are plenty of career paths for which prior specialist training is essential. Being a politician in our national legislature is not one of them. In Malta, the trend towards the professionalisation of politics has been widely viewed as problematic.

The rise of the ‘career politician’ means that increasingly, politicians without a great deal of first-hand experience of the world outside politics are running the country. It is the lack of political professionalism among MPs that may pose the greatest threat to the effective functioning of democracy.

There are two principal forms of political amateurism in Maltese politics: amateurism with limited experience and amateurism with limited tenure. Political amateurism, antonymous to political professionalism, can be understood both in terms of an MP’s career before getting elected and after entering parliament.

Ambition is surely a driving force behind any political career. Politics thrives on the hope of favour and the drive for office. In our case, however, there may be little incentive for an individual to channel his or her political ambition into the development of pre-parliamentary political experience. For example, the most ambitious and intentional of political professionals could rationally seek accelerated advancement by, for example, working as a political researcher for a parliamentarian before standing for office themselves.

Within parliament, the apparent lack of meritocracy in promotions is plain to see. Cabinet promotions are a function of the representative imperative, or, in other words, an MP’s socio-geographical characteristics are more important determinants of promotion than any political experience or qualifications potentially suited to a given portfolio. Prime ministerial appointments conventionally give strong consideration to regional representation.

All too many of the bad headlines and public relations blunders that have beset the present administration have sprung from an old-fashioned, old-chums-all-together way of conducting the serious business of government. This amateurish culture is far from the purposeful professionalism of Eddie Fenech Adami’s days.

We are a society obsessed with credentials. We demand certifications for our professionals and licences for just about everything. We also expect demonstrated experience and testimonials from satisfied customers and clients.

Yet, when it comes to selecting the top leadership in our government and administration, we abandon essentially all professional standards. We accept the rather mindless notion that any bright and public-spirited citizen can run a government agency, bureau or office.

Few sane people who have other options would willingly insert themselves into the thankless circus that politics has become for the meagre rewards and high risks available. Malta would benefit from a more professional political class.