The Leader of the Opposition has raised in Parliament the persistent rumours that the President of the Republic may be contesting the elections for the European Parliament. If these rumours are unfounded they should be declared so. Otherwise, they may foment a favourable campaign in favour of a potential candidate, without that candidate being officially a candidate.
This is not fair on the individual himself, not fair to the constitutional set-up, and certainly not fair on other contenders within the Nationalist camp.
The novelty may be alluring, but some factors do exclude, even without any written rules or precedent, that certain elective posts are no longer open to those who have occupied certain positions. They acquire an aura which is not confrontational any longer. They become an asset to the nation, even though their political views may be known and never in dispute.
For example, I am perturbed to see a retired judge, just a month after having been on the Bench, entering politics and taking sides. At times it is even incompatible the other way round. A politician who is too prominent in his party may have all the qualities of an excellent judge. If, according to our system, he is appointed by his own party in office, this may be misunderstood as being a promotion to repay for services rendered. If he is elevated to a judgeship by the opposing party, the implications may be that he entered into some sort of deal.
All this may be perfectly legitimate in other countries, including democratic. But we cannot forget that we are small, and there are certain rules which are applicable to size. Elections are tricky situations. What would happen if that individual who a few days back was considered as the symbol of nationhood, and that only the lapse of time has made it necessary that he ceases to be President, is not elected to be an ordinary MEP? It is not a question of diminutio capitis, or "lowering of a head"? It is a vote of lack of confidence.
On the other hand, if the voters are induced to vote for an ex-President so that there is no slur on his performance, this would be tipping the balance in his individual candidacy. Would this be fair on other contenders in his own camp? I doubt it. Not that, under present circumstances, this should trouble me unduly. For obvious reasons, I would not be voting for his list, without any questions of personal prejudice. Elections, even within the lists of the same party, should be fair.
Sticking to one's choice
A former schoolmate asked me why I did not put my name on the list of potential candidates for such an election. The reason is simple. It would have been rather incompatible that I would contest for an election when I was so critical of the institutions of the EU. Certainly now I accept the verdict of the electorate, and fully respect it, on the same lines as the Greens in Sweden accept the result of the referendum on adhesion. The people have spoken through their vote. But at the same time I felt precluded from even considering contesting. There was also another political reason, to be perfectly honest.
Fundamentally, however, there is a golden rule which should always be observed, although it is often used in legal jargon. Selecta una via non datur recursus ad alteram - once you have made a choice, stick to it, with all its logical consequenes.
A few weeks ago, I wrote in this column about the incompatibility of television personalities, especially those employed by the political radio and television companies, from entering politics. My argument was that this is not fair on the other contenders, and it is also not fair on the party which employed them. A few years back, I argued strenuously at an MLP General Conference that party officials should not stand for general elections, as they may be feathering their own bed.
The GWU has a rule which precluded section secretaries from contesting elections. This was a thorny problem a few months ago, as there no such incompatibility rule within the Labour Party statute, while it exists in the rules of the GWU. The union certainly did not want that any section secretary would be using his position to prepare his political future.
This is not a question of depriving anyone of his rights to become an MP or an MEP. It simply gives choices to an individual who cannot have all choices, without any lines of demarcation between one and the other.
On the other hand...
On the other hand, where the Presidency is concerned, and where certain posts require the impartiality of the holders of an exalted office, retirement may be a disaster for the individual, and this on a personal basis.
In my view there should be a solution. Although I am not in favour of a second chamber, there is nothing absurd in setting up a Council of State, in which former Presidents and retired judges and politicians may still give their valid contribution. They may still have enough zest in them to drive them forward and it is only legitimate that their experience, their culture, their detachment from partisan politics could stand us in good stead as a litigious small nation. People should be respected in their lifetime, as they also learn to respect what unites us to earn that respect.