Editorial

Malta is never short of political controversies. Its democracy is most lively, with the people directly sharing in the life of the country in a way that would surprise people in countries far more advanced than Malta. This is a healthy sign, insofar that the controversies that arise are kept within the limits of acceptable norms of discussion and behaviour.

It has not always been so but it does seem that despite the keen political partisanship - or tribalism, as some would prefer to call it - that still characterise so strongly the local political environment, there has been an improvement, however slight this may be regarded by those who are anxious to see the country making a leap forward in the way we do politics.

Against this background, it is most unfortunate that the person who worked so hard over the years to bring about such improvement is himself the cause that may continue to perpetuate partisanship. There is hardly any need to sing the praises of Eddie Fenech Adami but his election to the presidency is stirring new heartaches in a country that remains so politically divisive.

The point of the controversy that has arisen over his election is not whether or not he is qualified to hold the office. There is absolutely no question that he has all the attributes for the post. It is not, either, the perception many have already formed, that he would be looking over the shoulders of his successor, Lawrence Gonzi. The only argument is over whether or not, given the political circumstances of the country at this point in time, Dr Fenech Adami was the right choice.

Labour says it is not. Most Nationalists would, of course, agree with the choice, arguing there is no reason why he should not be occupying the post once he has the right attributes. Frankly though, there are many Nationalists who think Dr Fenech Adami is not the right choice mainly because, more than any other political figure in the party, he represents the victor in the political battles between the two major parties for a considerable length of time.

The bitterness showed in the parliamentary debate on the motion for the election of Dr Fenech Adami is just one indication of how people in the Labour Party consider the new President. Dr Gonzi is confident that five years on, time would show that the choice was right and that Dr Fenech Adami would prove to be a President who united the people behind him.

This would be the natural wish of all those who would like to see the country move ahead without unnecessary political controversies of this nature. And there is no doubt that Dr Fenech Adami would do his very best to act as a President of all the people, as all the others did before him.

Still, one can hardly ignore the fact that, as Opposition Leader Alfred Sant said, Labour Party people feel hurt and humiliated at the election of Dr Fenech Adami as President. So, again, without in any way diminishing Dr Fenech Adami's attributes, was it absolutely necessary for the government to nominate him as President?

If unity is the symbol of the post, was it wise on the government's part to nominate a person seen by Labour as their greatest political adversary? Was it not time to genuinely search for a nominee acceptable to the majority? Had this been done, it would have eliminated the rancour that the Labour people feel over the election of Dr Fenech Adami.