Editorial

The state opening of Parliament is always a signal event in the life of the country. It not only marks the birth of the legislature, it is also a celebration of democracy - the representatives elected by the people take their place in the House to legislate in terms of the mandate given to them by the electorate.

The address by the President is, therefore, a yardstick by which the Administration will be judged; it is a commitment far more formal and binding than the electoral pledges made by a political party in the run-up to a general election.

The legislative programme which the President will outline today effectively charts the course the country will follow in the next five years.

However, Parliament is not just about legislation. More than anything else, it is the primary forum for debate on the issues that face the nation and its people.

In a country where the government and the opposition are divided by a wafer-thin majority - the result of the March 8 election proves that beyond any doubt - and where, frankly, the two sides are not poles apart on principles either, Parliament needs to become a forum enriched by a diversity of ideas but also serve as the vehicle where such ideas are converged.

Alas, the 11th Parliament is starting off on the wrong foot, with disagreement on the appointment of the Speaker. That is not a rarity, nor should it discourage the two sides from seeking ways of working together while respecting their roles as government and opposition.

It is understandable that the opposition would not like, before its new leader is elected, to make decisions that could have a bearing on the rest of the legislature, as in the case of pairing. It is a matter for concern, however, that so many voices within the opposition seem to be resisting a pairing arrangement. That would only mean pain for the country and no gain for the opposition.

The major benefit of pairing is that it enables ministers to attend meetings abroad, even when Parliament is sitting, without the risk of the government losing a vote. It follows, therefore, that, should parliamentary sittings clash with overseas appointments, Malta will not be represented at ministerial level. Alternatively, the business of Parliament will be scheduled according to ministerial appointments. How's that for the dignity of the highest institution of the country?

And it gets worse. For the usual government reaction whenever an opposition is not conducive to pairing arrangements is to restrict the parliamentary agenda to legislation. Private business, including debates proposed by the opposition, inevitably become rare. Will that benefit the opposition? Indeed, will that benefit the institution of Parliament and the country as a whole? Unlikely.

Parliament has a further role apart from legislation and debate. It is that of holding the Executive to account. Is it too much to hope for an improvement in Question Time in this Parliament?

In the last legislature suggestions had been made for the introduction of Prime Minister's Questions. It was also suggested that specific days be allocated for specific ministries with other days open for general questions. These are ideas which both sides of the House should now agree to make progress on.

The bottom line is a defining one. Will the parties use Parliament as their arena for a gladiatorial fight and obstructionist tactics or will they give it its dignity as the temple of democracy where the battles are fought only over principles and policies?