Who is the best person for a job?

When the personnel of the reshuffled Cabinet and junior ministers is announced this afternoon, one thing is clear: those who have gained or retained preferment will not have done so on the basis of merit.

Merit, that is in terms of competence or track record. There will be people promoted or retained to run massive and complex Government Departments of State who have never run anything before and who would never be asked to run anything in the real world.

Martin E Cullen probably will be retained in the Government but what company in the private sector would retain someone in office who had made such a spectacular mess of e-voting and the purchase of Farmleigh House? What company in the private sector would have Seamus Brennan run anything? Or Mary Harney, or Eamon Ó Cuív?

At least Brian Cowen and Dermot Ahern ran solicitors' practices; but who in their right minds would ask a barrister to run anything? Look at the mess judges (former barristers) make of running the courts. So why would we expect a barrister to have the capacity to run the Department of Justice?

It is not that barristers are congenitally incapable of running anything, although the mixture of untrammelled self-confidence and brazen self advertisement - the necessary ingredients for success at the Bar - probably suggest an incapacity to live, let alone deal in the real world; rather it is that they have no experience in running anything other than themselves, which most of them do very badly indeed.

I have made the point here recently that I see no reason why the executive branch of Government should be an elected one. The executive arm of the State should be a composition of professionals who do what the directly elected branch of government (i.e. the legislature) tell them to do.

The situation we have at present is that the executive branch of government is both incompetent and unaccountable, because it is run by politicians, many of whom have no executive capacity at all, and the legislative branch has withered on the vine, entirely controlled by that branch of government to which it should be controlled.

But that is not my agenda for today. I have a separate point in mind and it relates to the reality that Government ministers are not appointed on the basis of merit or competence. Other factors enter the fray and we all acknowledge that is okay.

The other factors include geographic considerations. There has to be a Cabinet minister from the west, irrespective of whether there is anybody in the Government parties from the west who could run a fruit stall. Ditto a Cabinet minister for Cork.

There also has to be two PD Ministers even though the PDs have proved conclusively they cannot manage their own little get-up without screaming, hair-pulling and stamping of feet. They are bad even at intrigue.

The point I am getting at (I know, circuitously) is that we accept it is okay for other factors to enter into the choice of people to run the country other than competence or merit.

And we think this is okay because it serves other valid special objectives, such as the representation of people in Government from various parts of the country, the representation of the parties in Government and, perhaps, of factions within parties.

So why do we not think it is okay for criteria other than simple competence or merit to have a part in the choice of people for other positions?

I am thinking of the oft-rejected demand for gender quotas in the appointment of people to State boards or public offices. You know the shrill incantation, "the best person for the job". But why, if choosing the "best" person denies the achievement of valid social objectives, should the "best" person be chosen?

Why is it okay to overlook the mantra of "best person for the job" in the appointment of Government ministers and to insist on it in relation to lesser positions?

Quotas are a valid device to rectify deep-seated inequalities. Therefore an insistence on parties having a minimum of 40 per cent female candidates is perfectly reasonable. Of course, in certain instances this will mean that the "best" person will be overlooked, but so what?

Equally, on the appointment of judges, for instance, why should there not be a policy now to ensure that within 10 years there is an equality of women with men on the Bench?

Why, if it is okay to appoint ministers on the basis of geographic considerations, would it not be okay to do so on the basis of gender; to insist that half the Cabinet positions be held by women?

There are not enough around now within the Government parties to accomplish that, but, for a start, why not have Liz O'Donnell, Marie Hoctor, Cecilia Keaveney, Fiona O'Malley and Mae Sexton?

They could not be any worse.