Complicating consensus

Gavin Gulia's job is to oppose the government on matters of justice and home affairs. Mario de Marco's and Jason Azzopardi's job is to support the government.

That is how it should be in a parliamentary democracy. Dr Gulia however decided to quote both Nationalist MPs when they expressed themselves on particular legal technical difficulties regarding some sections on the proposed amendments with the partisan rider: "(Tonio) Borg knows that his so-called 'reforms' opposed by MPs of his own ilk are weakening his political stature as minister and Deputy Prime Minister".

This is not the manner in which this country can build any modicum of national consensus on matters such as amendments to the Criminal Code, electoral reform and the introduction of the euro.

The constitutional role of the opposition is to oppose the government, always keeping in mind the national interest. This means that there are issues where the role of winning votes should not be considered paramount. Equally it is the government's duty to take heed of any constructive criticism raised by the opposition and, if need be, to adopt such criticism as part of its policy.

So why should members of Parliament from the government side be dragged into partisan politics when they are expressing themselves on technical matters being debated in Parliament? This, after all, is no repeat of Dom Mintoff's rebellion to the MLP whip in 1998!

From a constitutional aspect it is only ministers who would incur political consequences if they were to dissent in public from the government's policy. In the case of other MPs, when else may they contribute to the legislative process other than when the Bill is being debated in Parliament? They certainly would not have had the opportunity to discuss the matter at Cabinet meetings.

The reform to the Criminal Code in fact goes beyond partisan politics; it goes beyond parliamentary debate; it concerns the right of each and every one of us irrespective of our particular political beliefs or allegiances. It concerns the legal profession as much as the parliamentarians.

There must exist the political climate in which the legal profession or any other category have to feel at ease to discuss the matter without being dragged into the political fray.

I for one feel that the provision whereby the inquiring magistrate would require the go-ahead from any other authority after a private report needs more careful thinking. I remember when the court buildings were attacked by a mob, the inquiring magistrate had not been informed officially of the event that had happened a few metres from his office and could not therefore hold the magisterial inquiry.

It had to be the Chamber of Advocates which had to file a private report to allow the magisterial inquiry to be carried out.

To my mind neither the Nationalist MPs who raised the technical difficulties nor the Labour MP who was quoted as being favourable did so in order to express political dissent in regard to their respective parties or their leadership. Naturally they are free to do so, but neither did.

It would be equally odious to pit the Leader of the Opposition, who in The Times clearly expressed himself against any amendments to the existing electoral districts since he considers the current districts as being clearly advantageous to Labour, against a leading Labour spokesman who indicated clearly in The Sunday Times that gerrymandering of the districts was the main issue before us and not the matter of Gozo becoming an electoral district.

While it is to be acknowledged that politics has worldwide become the realm of instant politics with sound bites, and media clips determining the future of governments and individual politicians and where it is important to score the instant political points in a few words, this, however, must not be allowed to determine questions of human rights on reforms to the Criminal Code, electoral reform, all issues which would go well beyond the partisan advantages at the next immediate general election.

Instant politics and the quest of national consensus on matters of political interest do not mix. We voters are mature enough to appreciate politicians from both sides who are mature to speak their minds in the national interest and the leadership of both parties should be equally mature to appreciate such contributions.

So, please, Drs de Marco, Azzopardi (PN) and Adrian Vassallo (MLP) keep up your sterling service to the country and to democracy especially on matters of national interest.