The last general election gave a somewhat peculiar result. Though the Nationalist Party did succeed in winning and, therefore, has a legitimate claim to govern, the present political scenario has created certain considerable difficulties for the party in government.
For the first time since Independence, the present government enjoys only a relative majority of the popular vote. More importantly, it has only a one-seat majority. This fact, in today's circumstances, could create a discomfort to the ruling party.
Since Malta joined the European Union, as of necessity, the foreign commitments of government ministers and parliamentarians has increased tremendously. We all know that these ministers have to partake almost on a roster basis in the Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels. As a member state, Malta cannot refrain from partaking to the full in European business nor is it politically expedient for the government to delegate such work to top civil servants, as happens occasionally. The Council of Ministers is, after all, the forum which sets European policy and legislation and, therefore, the government is morally bound to partake directly in this exercise.
Similarly, there are numerous important permanent European parliamentary committees which meet on a regular basis and, here again, government parliamentarians are in duty bound to attend.
On account of all this, it is logical to assume that, more often than not, due to such foreign business, there will be numerous occasions when the government's side would find itself in a minority and will, thus, be hampered in passing legislation. In light of this, the government must of necessity try and seek an arrangement on pairing with the opposition.
Parliament can pass many laws and it can actually revamp the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. One thing Parliament cannot do, however, is pass legislation to introduce mandatory pairing because this would signify obliging MPs not to partake in voting in the House, which is their constitutional right to do so.
It is against this background that the Prime Minister has handed over a package of proposals enticing the opposition to concede to a form of pairing. The government has even gone so far as to offer the high office of Speaker to the opposition. Rightly so, the Labour Party's parliamentary group, after discussing in depth the said proposals, has decided to postpone its decision to a later date when the party delegates would have succeeded in choosing a new party leader.
The decision seems in order since it wouldn't be appropriate for the Labour group to bind its future leader, whose election is imminent, with a mode of parliamentary conduct without having given the said leader the opportunity to partake in the discussions. This notwithstanding, however, the MLP has exercised caution and has shown itself as being open to discussions with the party in government.
It must be pointed out that, for too long a time now, inter-party talks have been too strenuous and too remote. Thus, the position being taken by the opposition, which stands at an advantage point, is laudable and should go down well especially with people holding moderate political views.
In today's circumstances, inter-party discussions should come about naturally and as such, would certainly contribute positively to parliamentary work. Where possible, parliamentarians should try and avoid confrontational tactics. This, however, does not in any way signify that the opposition should seem to be in any way submissive to the government. It has a constitutional role to play and this dictates that the opposition must affirm its interests in order to be able to perform its duties in the best way possible.
Thus, inter-party dialogue should always lead to a system of give and take. A balance should be sought between the interests of the two sides of the House of Representatives and, more so, the interests of the people at large.
The proposals being made by the government are, to say the least, interesting and provide food for thought. Surely, therefore, after the parliamentarians from the opposition benches would have had enough time to analyse carefully what is being proposed, it should prove to be opportune for them to make counter proposals so that perhaps a modus vivendi could be agreed upon. What could surely disrupt such discussions would be an attitude of arrogance which, unfortunately, we members of the opposition have experienced from the government side over the years.
It must be emphasised that cooperation between the government and the opposition does not only mean cooperation solely when the government deems fit and necessary.
It must also imply a general attitude and signify that the government's side would, in turn, acquiesce to cooperate when the demand comes from the opposition side.
Thus, any agreement reached would be a fragile one and its permanence would depend on the attitude the government would take over the years. This notwithstanding, to my mind the fact that this time round there is a possibility of friendly discussions between the two parties in Parliament is surely a step in the right direction.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.