Prohibit all talk

The "new" Gonzi administration has spectacularly failed in the first political test it faced. Whether it happened on purpose or not, this revolved around the choice of the next President of the Republic. Rarely has there been such a controversial appointee for the post, nominated in a manner that gratuitously seemed to be seeking how to fuel controversy.

We were given to understand that the angel of sweet reason would guide the "new" administration's behaviour towards its supporters, and not least, towards those who disagreed with it. Dialogue, give and take, minimising confrontation were the leading lines that the government would follow. And Prime Minister Gonzi declared he wants to be judged not by what he says but by what he delivers. Fair enough.

The choice of a new President is always a tricky one. The nominee must have a national stature, even if his/her role is mostly ceremonial. He/she must have knowledge of how public life is regulated. Most of all, the nominee must be seen to have qualities that enable the population at large to feel that, as head of state, he/she can represent national unity, both today and in the future.

True, up to now, with the exception of the first person nominated, all Presidents have come from within the political parties. Some raised controversy at the time of their appointment which in the main was dissipated over the five years of their tenure. Not surprisingly, there were calls over the years for a President to be nominated from outside the political parties. It is not easy to find people without any political affiliation. The plea therefore has been for a nominee of national stature who had not been involved in past political dogfights and who could be seen as immediately acceptable to all sides.

Perhaps at no time as now was the case for such an approach so strong. Politically, we have emerged over the past year - are still emerging - from a long-standing and fundamental controversy regarding whether Malta should join the EU or adopt some other relationship with the Union. It would be futile to deny that that controversy did not create huge and genuine differences of opinion among wide sectors of our society. The cuts and gashes within our social fabric need time to heal... no matter what the government's media gurus try to peddle by way of feel good.

Moreover, though the government has tried to ignore it, the economic and social crisis Malta faces is for real. It will need decisive and intelligent action to contain the rot, to stimulate new initiative and to control government spending. At the top of the state, there is the need for a person who would be able as of now to bring people together. This will become more crucial as the stresses and strains of EU membership - as contrasted with the promised joys - catch up with ordinary citizens.

Now, along with most people, I had been aware of the rumours that former Prime Minister Fenech Adami was being fingered for the presidency. At first, I found them impossible to believe. Rightly or wrongly, the leaders of political parties in Malta are perceived as extremely divisive personalities. They will have led political controversies and been associated with actions that generate contrasting views and attitudes, leaving in their wake, shall we say, resentment... to put it mildly.

Dr Fenech Adami is no exception to this rule. No matter how much he may be appreciated and revered by his supporters, to a half or so of the population he represents ideas and policies which they strongly stand against.

To many, he is responsible for decisions that have affected them badly, sometimes injustly, in their life and career, or in the lives and careers of their relatives and friends.

And he has been in this position for close to 27 years. This apart from the fact that he led one side of the great EU debate and is credited by many with huge responsibility for the economic crisis we face.

Earlier this month, the Labour opposition floated the idea of a presidential nominee who would be agreed to by both sides in parliament, coming from outside political life. For 10 days or so, we received suggestions on these lines from different people. Eventually Labour MPs met to settle on a short list of three.

With the weeks, the rumour mill became so insistent that one had to conclude there was momentum in the government camp for a Fenech Adami nomination. However, when I met Prime Minister-elect Gonzi four days before his swearing-in, he assured me that no decision had been taken since the matter was for the new Cabinet to consider. He asked for our suggestions.

Two days after he was given Labour's short list, the new Cabinet having met, the Prime Minister sent back his reply. The government turned down our suggestions and was going to nominate Dr Fenech Adami for the post of President.

There could hardly have been a more divisive nomination than this. All the explanations that have come from Dr Gonzi's side to justify it are puny, if not hypocritical. Perhaps it would have been wiser to prohibit all explanatory talk about the matter and just carry it out as an exercise of power, which it is.

To approach such a delicate matter in the cavalier manner adopted by the "new" Gonzi administration effectively signals the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister promised only a few days ago, about his style of running the country.

Why did the government need to make such a divisive decision on the eve of what it has touted as a historic moment?