Whenever an election comes along situations arise that fall fair and square within the realm of political opportunism. The point to be made initially is that political opportunism per se is not necessarily bad. In its extreme form it can be seen to be bad in the sense that it belies an utter lack of integrity. In its milder form there is nothing wrong in accepting that, sometimes, opportunities are there to be taken.

In 1998, when the Nationalist Party voted the Malta Labour Party out of office, it was a perfect example of political opportunism in its finest form with the PN voting together with Dom Mintoff in order to get back into power. Having the PN and Mr Mintoff on the same side was, to an extent, hugely unacceptable to most within the PN circle but, once the opportunity manifested itself in the PN getting back to power, there was nothing to be done.

Many within the MLP circle felt betrayed by what went on but this was the political process at work in its finest form: If you lose your majority in Parliament you lose the seat of government. Political opportunism fair and square within the context of the democratic political process.

Not all political opportunism can, however, be deemed as acceptable. There are issues of responsibility, values, accountability and, of course, consistency that cannot be ignored.

We expect our politicians to assume responsibility for their actions. This has, over the years, been a massive failure on the part of many politicians, probably the world over. Locally, the list of politicians who have been found wanting is endless. As is endless the list of politicians who carry on regardless of having been found wanting! Within the same context, we expect accountability on the part of our politicians. Accountability ought to ensure the end of favouritism. By being held accountable, say for the appointment of incompetent people on boards, should the board then make some wrong decision, the politician can be held accountable at least politically.

Maybe it all boils down to values and consistency. How often have we had politicians say one thing a few days prior to an election and then turn it around completely? How often have promises been broken? It is, in a sense, unfortunate in that we can only use the PN as an example since, having won the last three elections, it is only they who have, over the past years, been in a position to stick to their electoral promises.

The question the electorate must ask itself is, therefore, what the PN yardstick is when it comes to the political opportunism used in order to win elections. The MLP yardstick over the same period is, of course, different. We can look at local councils and our MEPs to see whether what was promised was in fact delivered.

I do not and will not point out certain promises that were made by the PN prior to the 1998 election and have not yet been fulfilled. Nor will I point out the promises that were fulfilled. The electorate has made its choice. I do, however, have a simple suggestion. Each voter should keep a list of seven items promised by the PN in the run up to the election. This list should then be re-visited a month or so from the next election and re-read.

I have in hand the list I made prior to the 2003 election and it made interesting reading. In this sense I believe that the PN has been ever consistent in its beliefs: It repeatedly says one thing and does another. We have already been regaled with the Mepa fiasco; all its boards being suspended for a few days to be then reconstituted without any change in guidelines.

Basically, a futile exercise. The needless go-it-alone Partnership for Peace decision by the government, not mentioned in the electoral manifesto, has also set down the markers of how this government will act. Frankly, the electorate expected much more and better.

The government has repeatedly indicated that it expects the cooperation of the opposition but it has already started on the wrong foot!