By Owen Bonnici  

The idea of a Cabinet reshuffle should not be taken lightly because this action directly affects the way a country is governed.

The prime minister, as the classical notion of primus inter pares tells us, has the right to appoint his body of ministers from those elected in Parliament. The prime minister, theoretically at least, may pick and choose at will although constrained by various political and regional restrictions.

Now, turning from theory to practice, I believe that in principle Cabinet reshuffles are beneficial because they give a stimulus to ministers to fulfil their duties and to effectuate their share of the political manifesto. Certainly, the power of the prime minister to order Cabinet reshuffles may prove to be a very important clout in decisive situations – both to reprimand negligent ministers and to fine tune the way the decision-making mechanism is functioning.

Nevertheless, I believe that Dr Fenech Adami’s power to perform courageous changes is limited not only by the normal political and geographical restrictions but by the impossibility of actualising the electoral manifesto. Useless to change if the results cannot be attained.

Apart from the fact that ministers like Finance Minister John Dalli consider themselves to be untouchables and that various ministers are continuously making serious errors without ever being scolded or ordered to shoulder their responsibility, the main problem is that of indeed actualising the 1998 electoral manifesto which is showing itself to be impossible to translate into practice.

The problem is so huge that changing ministries has become a useless option. Calling people voting Labour, idiots and gullible does not remedy the situation either.

The truth is that the Nationalist Party won the election basing itself on an unrealistic manifesto when considering the huge national deficit problem, which ironically was brought about by previous spendthrift Nationalist administrations. Indeed, the 1996 Labour Government had committed some errors and made mistakes, but at least it was sincere in its disposition to remedy the financial situation of our country.

Mr Bonnici is an upcoming Labour candidate

  By John Mallia

Like most issues, the question of cabinet reshuffles is the proverbial two-edged sword. On one side of the coin – reshuffles are best avoided to ensure continuity. Government is made up of people, and people tend to have different attitudes, styles and aspirations.

Changing the people means upsetting the apple cart, at least in terms of lasting human relationships. Relationships take time to develop, and normally follow some type of learning curve. Change relegates the relationship game back to square one.

Politics finds a good parallel in market psychology. While the market needs good morale to thrive, so does politics. Cabinet reshuffles can also give the impression that something is wrong.

Right. So we’re giving the impression that so far, so good. So what? What is worse for a democracy than shallow whitewash and tons of verbal smokescreen? If government cannot decide to trim the lawn, the electorate may opt to do it for him. The other side of the coin - No person has the automatic, God-given right to a post of responsibility in public life. One word which is definitely out of the democratic jargon is permanence. A person’s permanence in public life normally depends on where the electorate intends to cut the line. No change induces sterility, inefficiency, and may invariably lead to abuse. The scriptures tell us that we should live every day of our lives as if it were our last. This should also be the motto of political life.

Finally, a reshuffle should also give another message to the electorate: you don’t need to change us. We are capable of changing ourselves. Fresh people, fresh ideas, fresh approach, fresh energy. Not doing this can mean either of three things: there are no available quality substitutes; we’re doing fine for now; there is no courage for change.

Where targets have not been met, the incumbents should be changed. This is the essence of accountability, and follows the principle of leading by example. This is democracy at work.

Reshuffle or no reshuffle, much depends on the quality, integrity and initiative of the particular incumbent.

Mr Mallia is station manager at Capital Radio