Ministers of ministering

Last week the Prime Minister Robert Abela selected his new cabinet and ministers were allocated their new portfolios. Some stayed the same, while others switched to new fields. Naturally the assigned minister and their new role bear an impact across business and all sectors. What was notable was the high energy and enthusiasm from some of those who received a change about how much they love that sector or industry. Now, the old phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" may well and truly come to mind. How can one person be a devoted guru of all things education, for example, and now be a cultural buff? How can someone responsible for protecting the environment be the same person who builds and destroys it months later?. On the other hand, some ministers are rightfully experts in their field and manage portfolios with decades of experience in that area under their belt. Chris Fearne, a medical doctor, is one example, placed with the remit of the Ministry of Health, and Clyde Caruana, Ministry of Finance, an economist by trade, is another.

Now, we are not saying those without a strong history of working in that area are incapable of running a different show, they may well have excellent skills in doing so and the right people around them to help make the magic happen. Still, one cannot help but wonder what if the system were different? What if we elected people, or rather those with political interest and experts in the subject matter in hand, to become the minister of a specific portfolio? Some may say, the current democracy is not who we are. It is just a system of government, which we built, and which we could replace. So why don't we replace it with something better? Why don't we give more weight to the views of the people who are best qualified to evaluate what to do?

Epistocracy means rule by the people who know best. Technocracy is rule by mechanics and engineers. A technocrat is someone who understands how the machinery works. In November 2011, Greek democracy was suspended, and an elected government was replaced by a cabinet of experts, tasked with stabilising the collapsing Greek economy before new elections could be held.

Dr Matthew Wood, a lecturer in politics at the University of Sheffield, had conducted some interesting work on how to incorporate experts and government. He notes, "first, governments need to better understand their relationships with expert entitles. Delegating decisions to experts does not mean politicians can then take a 'hand's off' approach and simply let the experts make decisions. Effective governance necessarily involves adequate resources and political support from politicians.

Second, taking an inclusive approach to decision making. While scientific knowledge is crucial to good decision making, it is not the only relevant form of knowledge. Even if not generalisable, knowledge from local communities can still be relevant. Incorporating a wider variety of knowledge – including various academic forms of expertise beyond the usual suspects – can help build a robust evidence base and assure legitimacy.

Third, respecting and understanding the value of expert knowledge while out of office. There is a lot of social theory literature showing why governments might experience a conflict between needing to appoint experts in making policy, and managing heightened accountability pressures and precarious reputations."

Generally speaking, understanding the value of experts outside government – in the media and the broader public sphere – may pave the way to a narrative about the resurgence of expertise, which is likely to become more integral as we face the horrendous problems of the 21st century. How would this function in practice? The obvious difficulty is knowing who should count as the knowers. There is no formal qualification for being a general expert.