Need to remain on speaking terms

The early sparring between the government and the newly-led opposition is becoming interesting. At a pinch it could also turn into a tango, with a limited positive outcome. That could come about in the context of a sincere dialogue on how to strengthen the democratic process. The opposition has put on the table a series of proposals, which the government did not turn its nose up to. The Prime Minister observed that a number of them were included in the President's speech, outlining the re-elected Administration's legislative programme.

True enough. But a bipartisan approach towards what could be common ground is preferable to one side doing it alone. Lawrence Gonzi's subsequent proposal to set up a parliamentary select committee was a clever reaction. MLP leader Joseph Muscat also countered well - civil society should be included in the process, he said; this should not be a matter for MPs alone. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. They are actually complimentary. The public should certainly be involved in a wide-ranging discussion process, as John Dalli saw to it that the public can be involved by suggesting rent reform through a White Paper and not draft legislation.

The positive aspect of all this is that the government and the opposition are on speaking terms. There is a new propensity to discuss. That is welcome, after years of near total negativism by the opposition party of the day, with the Nationalists more than setting the tone when they occupied that role in the 1970s and the 1980s, even well before the perverse outcome of the 1981 general election. While welcoming the development, however, the public would do well not to be misled and to demand that the area of positive discussion should be for its real benefit and not merely a means to the end of either political side's calculated positioning.

For this to be clearer, the government's "offer" to appoint an opposition MP as Speaker of the House in return for a pairing agreement should be swept off the table. It would be a democratic step forward if the two sides were to agree that the Speaker would be selected by consensus. Meanwhile, let Louis Galea get on with the task; he has background and surely resolve to make a good job of it. It would also be a sensible step forward to work out a clearly-delineated pairing arrangement, say for a year at a time and restricted to EU and international obligations. But it was crass of the government to link the two factors. So long as the Speaker nomination is left dependent on pairing, the Gonzi-proposed select committee will not really function.

That would be a pity. There are areas where proactive discussion by MPs detached from preset partisanship and with civil society input could indeed lead to strengthening of the democratic process. One such area is to reform the electoral process much more effectively than has been done so far. That should aim for the strictest possible seats-votes proportionality and for an honest chance for small parties to be represented in Parliament should they cross a serious national threshold.

There are other areas suitable for treatment. Decoupling the appointment of the Speaker and the government's pairing requirements will remove the effective block to making a real start. Until a start towards a true effort at a realistically-limited positive outcome can be made, better not try to fool oneself and the public with a false start destined to lead to failure. Meanwhile, there is no reason why the two sides should not remain on civil speaking terms.