Members of the political class have a duty to keep a watchful eye on their opponents, to expose any hanky-panky going on or intended by them. It is part of the political game, though, to raise doubt, and cast aspersions. There was some of that last year. There's likely to be much more this year. And that will be only in preparation for a great deal more of the same during the long run-in to the general election, starting in 2007.
The sale of the property known as Pender Place is the latest episode in the series. The Opposition criticised the sale, claiming it was intended to raise funds to finance the wreckage of the government's investment that sank in the port of Brindisi. The Leader of the Opposition upped that charge.
In rhetorical essence Dr Alfred Sant wondered whether the Nationalist government's decision to sell Pender Place was intended to line the pockets of certain blue-eyed boys. As it happened, the successful bidders for the property paid some Lm4 million more than the Lm6 million the next bidders felt it was worth. The deal went through.
On Sunday it emerged that the notary appointed by the buyers to make out the deed was Dr Charles Mangion, deputy leader, parliamentary affairs, of the Labour Party. It has also turned out that Dr Mangion had advised the Opposition Leader of the development. Dr Sant evidently gave him the nod.
The story was broken by the investigative Sunday newspaper, Malta Today, which gives few quarters at all to the political class. The Nationalist media picked it up with zest and vigour. They had space and sun to make much political hay.
They could fling back at Dr Sant his charge that the Pender Place sale was structured to favour some blue-eyed boys of theirs. Had that really been the case, the Nationalists could have crowed, the Opposition Leader would not have permitted Notary Mangion to have soiled his professional hands by drawing up the deed of sale for those very same dodgy blue-eyed buyers.
The Nationalists could have demanded that the Opposition Leader withdraw the implication of hanky-panky. They chose not to go along that logical way. Whatever their gain from it, they wanted more.
They did counter-shoot at the MLP with gusto, pointing out that there was clear contradiction blowing about in the form of the pre-deal Sant charges, and the post-debate Mangion professional involvement. They did not rest on the satisfaction of scoring and lifting the back of the net with that shot.
In the true style of the tactic to raise doubts and cast aspersions, the Nationalists went on to charge Notary Mangion with a personal conflict of interest because he had criticised the Pender Place sale but then proceeded to act as the notary appointed by the buyers.
The C&C factor, contradiction and conflict, is not quite a perfect fit in this case. Dr Mangion definitely would have had a conflict of interest had he spoken in favour of the proposed Pender Place sale by the government so that he could subsequently benefit from it by acting as notary for the eventual buyers.
By standing up to criticise the sale when it was proposed by the government, he in fact helped raise an obstacle to the deal. That obstacle was overcome by the government majority.
Dr Mangion would also have been required to explain himself, had he been the one to allege that the sale was intended to favour blue-eyed boys. That charge, though, was levelled by Dr Sant.
The political game is always tough. It need not also be rough. But it is. The vicious circle of targeting individuals rather than their beliefs knows no break, with the political parties forging it with determination. Not infrequently the charge-and-counter-charge tactic lashes out at the families of politicians as well, whether with hard, flimsy or zero evidence and fabrication.
The objective of the tactic is clear enough. It is to whittle away at the integrity and honesty of the other side. Too many members of the class indulge themselves in such dirty play without even bothering to pause to reflect that, by so doing, they shove the game into disrepute.
Thereby politicians far too often undermine the whole political class, feeding the lingering belief that politics is dirty and peopled by self-seekers.
That also harms the practice of democracy itself, which requires serious people to be attracted to take part in politics.
And not to turn away from it in disgust.
An Odyssey without conflict
At 97, Sir Anthony Mamo remains a striking figure, projecting dignity, which he has transmitted and lived all his life. He has occupied the highest position in the land, becoming the first Maltese Governor-General and then the new Republic's first President. But it was not that position which rose in his memory when he was kind enough to allow me to share some of his time recently.
He did not even refer to it, nor to his position of Chief Justice. He told me with restrained pride that law students who visit relatives or staff at Casa Arkati, where he resides, tell him that they still use the notes which he used to give when he lectured at the University, decades ago.
In-Noti ta' Mamo - Mamo's Notes - they call them, he told me, looking into the distance. Criminal law hasn't changed much, he added with typical modesty, I suppose they still find my notes of some use.
He also recalled his days as Crown Advocate-General (now Attorney-General). We built up a respected Office, he told me, quickly going on to say: all those he followed kept that up.
We are blessed that in Sir Anthony and Dr Censu Tabone we have two venerable former heads of our young state. On the bookshelves in Ninu Mamo's room there stand two volumes of Homer's The Odyssey.
What an Odyssey this man's life has been, one during which he never allowed anything to conflict with or contradict his integrity and innate dignity.
C&C, Unholy Land
How terrible it is to witness the depth in which hatred is embedded in the hearts of Israelis and Palestinians. The agony of Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel disabled by repeated strokes, aroused not an ounce of concern, pity or regard among the Palestinians.
Several of them, even if speaking dispassionately, told the international media that they could not feign sorrow at Sharon's potentially imminent going from life on earth, never mind the certainty that in any case his political career is over.
Some spoke with restraint, mostly stressing that the warrior prime minister had not undergone any real and sincere conversion leading to his recent emphasis on the need to bring peace to their ravaged unholy land.
He only seemed to step back from the Gaza Strip and to clamp down on some Jewish settlements, they said, in order to consolidate Israeli's grip on the West Bank.
Palestinians made no bones about their feelings. They delighted that ill health was destroying and removing Ariel Sharon. They hated him bitterly for his military and political past, and clearly rejoiced at his agony and suffering.
Hate is an all-consuming fire. It allows for no forgiveness. When deeply embedded, it marches ruthlessly over hospital and deathbeds, following its object even into the grave.
More or less what Palestinians, who hate Sharon and all they saw he stood for, say and do was also declared and demonstrated by var-ious Israelis when the iconic Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was in his own agony, and on his death and its aftermath.
Hate allows for little objective reasoning. That is the fundamental tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two sides do not simply fear and mistrust each other. They are riven by mutual hate. They live their horrible, vicious circle and die within it too.
The two sides continue to disagree about the causes of the conflict between them. To the extremists and the fundamentalists among them to speak of ending the conflict through a peaceful solution is to wallow in clear contradiction: there can be no end to conflict unless the other side is destroyed.
Luckily, not all Palestinians and Israelis are extremists and fundamentalists. There are many among them who yearn for an end to conflict, for genuine peace in their lifetime. Their voice is far too often drowned out or dulled by the roars of those subsumed by hate. It still remains alive.
As with the passing on of Arafat, the departure of Sharon from the political scene and, perhaps, from life itself not before too long, offers an opportunity for a fresh round of stock-taking and soul-searching. To acknowledge injustices and trash out honest means to rectify them. To enable recognition of rights on each side to grow.
Hate can only be halted if the process of addressing its causes truly begins. A simple truth offers the point of departure towards the beginning of peace in the Middle East. By living in continuing conflict Palestinians and Israelis contradict the real benefits that can only be theirs through peaceful co-existence.