Troubled waters under bridges

It would be amazing were politicians in any one party or across party lines to agree totally on the provisions of the draft European Constitutional treaty. Absence of internal differences of opinion might be considered as amazing grace to a party in that particular state.

From a democratic standpoint, it would be an amazing state of peculiarity. If unanimity is only manifested publicly because there is strict internal control to curb public expression of differing positions, that would be no less than a democratic disgrace.

Within a few weeks the House of Representatives will be voting on whether to approve the draft, or not. The approach to that next EU milestone is taking on an unmistakably Maltese hue.

The government has been insisting for months that the decision must not be delayed, that the Opposition should stop dragging its feet and adopt a position. Meanwhile, there has been no clear indication of any deep discussion on the draft Constitution within the Nationalist Party and among government MPs. Much less of any reservations or different stances to any section, provision, codicil, comma or full stop contained in the draft.

It is within the right of any party in office to take the position that the government had made its stand in the lengthy and deep build-up to hammer out the draft and, as such, when it comes to the vote, its MPs will simply approve it within the parameters finally agreed on in the drafting stage.

Whether it is the essence of democracy to translate that into an absolute absence of criticism or reserve by the government front- and back-bench MPs, on the principle that they come to praise the draft, not to probe into it, let alone bury it, is another matter.

The position adopted, or at least signalled, by the Opposition Malta Labour Party is different, except in one important regard.

The Opposition refused to be stampeded into early pronouncement of its position. It commissioned three internal reports. I am not aware that they have been made public, but the main conclusions have seen light of day. In one basic aspect at least, they run the risk of cynical comment that they have also seen the light of truth. The legal conclusion seems to be that Malta's neutrality is not under threat.

Get two economists together, they say, and you get three opinions.

Get one lawyer alone and, just by himself, he will give you at least two. Ask any two lawyers and they might well give you more than enough interpretations to bewilder you. And if one interpretation prevails in a court of law, you can appeal to have it overturned, and might get that, on some point or another.

There is nothing strange in that. It is part of due process. It was always on the cards, therefore, that the argued opinion of the commissioned experts would be countered by contrary and no less argued positions. That can happen in the democratic process. And it most certainly did in this particular case.

At least two Labour lawyers hold no truck with the drift of the conclusions. One is a sitting Labour MP, Anglu Farrugia. The other is a former leader of the MLP, and prime minister, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, who is bringing his renowned logic to bear massively on the legal conclusions that tell the laymen that Malta's own Constitution and its neutrality would not be affected by the EU Constitution.

Still, not at all strange that should happen, along the object theme framing this columnist's evaluation. It should be expected in any human institutions where minds can think.

Nor was it surprising, by the same criterion applied to the Nationalists' more extreme approach, that the MLP chose to restrict discussion within the party structure, the upcoming forum of the general conference, which will be open to the media. Not surprising, but not necessarily the best approach, either.

Bottling up discussion until the open forum arrived always ran the risk inherent in any bottling, that some of the air within would come out. That is what happened. The replies to media quizzing of him by MLP leader Alfred Sant, and his own careful contributions in his columns, gave, as intended, more than a hint of which way he would attempt to steer the eventual discussion.

Other Labour voices and computer-pens also sent out the unmistakable signal that the thrust at the MLP general conference would be towards not opposing, and probably approving, the draft EU Constitution within expressions of reservations.

The predictably emerging theme has been that, once the MLP had accepted to take the majority decision of the electorate expressed in the general election of 2003 as final, the party would send out confusing signals if it came out in strong opposition to the constitutional treaty.

Translated, a negative position on the draft could and probably would lose the party votes and reduce its chances of winning the general election due in just over three years' time.

The ultimate objective of any political party is to win the legislative and administrative power to put its policies into effect. That is the basic meaning of the main Opposition party being the alternative government. As it was of the PN when it languished in Opposition. That is the overriding priority of the MLP.

One can easily understand why. By the 2008 election, over a span of more than 20 years, it would have governed for only 22 months. Winning local elections is fine, but not quite dandy. Fine and dandy requires vanquishing the Nationalist foe to wrest from it the right to govern.

That is natural enough. So natural that, though water under the bridge, it remains troubling that the Labour Party leadership did not recognise it should accept the unmistakable decision in favour of EU membership expressed in the referendum of two years ago.

Had it done so, it would have been no less coherent than being coy and reticent today about reiterating an unequivocal commitment to fiscal morality, as Alfred Sant was untypically in the latest interview to The Times (April 4).

Had the MLP accepted the 2003 referendum decision, it could be governing today, rather than having to wait for 2008 to arrive and, when it does, it may well have to pick up a bigger financial and economic mess than had built up by the election of 2003.

The MLP leader has continued to reject that was a serious alternative to fighting the election on an anti-accession platform often enough, backing his opinion with the argument that the MLP would have lost credibility and suffered a greater electoral defeat.

Opinions, whoever offers them, are just that, no more. The credibility issue would certainly have been drummed up by a desperate Nationalist Party. It was desperate because it knew that, had the EU issue been taken as settled by the referendum, it had little claim to merit re-election.

Politicians always jump at the least chance to try to metaphorically throttle their opponents. The Nationalists, more desperate than ever before, continue to do that today because the MLP leader still maintains that his pre-election position against EU membership, in favour of an alternative initially called Malta, a Switzerland in the Mediterranean, and later Partnership, would have been the better option.

The Nationalists criticise the current Labour leader without restraint, whatever he might say or even refrain from saying, as they have done each of his three predecessors, starting with Pawlu Boffa. That they should also spin and strain to exploit the fact that he remains coherent with a view he has always held, is not surprising.

They are not right in that regard. Rejecting the decision of the electorate in a referendum to wait for an- other unproductive bite at the cherry in a general election, is one thing; holding on to one's carefully worked out view quite another.

That troubled water has passed under the bridge, but has left the Labour Party stranded on the shores of Opposition. Getting into an election mode now will not make the remaining 40 months or so of Nationalist administration go away.

When 2008 arrives, Labour should win hands down, though the Labour leader is being careful not to let that be taken for granted. Unfortunately the waters that will be coming downstream are likely to be much more polluted, to stick to that metaphor, rather than to use that of the poisoned chalice.

The Nationalists are jumping for joy because the lawyers Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Anglu Farrugia, MP, have come out publicly and vehemently against the draft EU Constitution, even arguing it would be a betrayal not to oppose it.

Those are very strong words. Whether one agrees with them or not, and obviously the Labour leadership and most of the Labour grassroots would not, they reflect an honest view, fearlessly expressed.

Boldness does supply ammunition to Nationalist opponents feeling their backs very much against the wall. They will grasp at anything, let alone strong words in disharmony with the party line and a former leader who now cries out plaintively that he is gagged, not being allowed to go to MLP centres to address supporters as was the case in the anti-EU membership drive.

That is why bottling discussion is not the best approach to ensure that as much as possible nothing disturbs the rolling bandwagon towards winning office. The wagon of opinion should never be braked.

Free and open discussion to address and try to persuade as many minds as can be is far better than emulating, even limitedly, the choirs of eerie silence that, until recently, over the pitiful Zejtun and Marsa local elections stratagem, were as much synonymous with the Nationalist Party as the choir in Verdi's Nabucco.