Rough political nappies in season

From time to time the political class provides evidence that it finds it hard to grow up. This is one of them. Another sporadic example, for politicians can and do at times display a lot of sense in fruitful debate. Fruitful not because they end up agreeing, but because their contrasting and clashing argumentation is sound, from their different standpoints, and thereby offers the patient public something to take seriously before reaching a conclusion.

Agreement is rare in politics. The dictum that the role of the opposition is to oppose has been faithfully followed through the years. It is countered by another practice whereby the government of the day pooh-poohs whatever the opposition has to say.

In the aftermath of the general election and the arrival of a new Labour leader, there was a suggestion that there would be a slight political culture shift. Joseph Muscat promised to oppose and never to become an accomplice in what the opposition deemed to be wrong. Yet he also undertook to ditch the total negativism that prevailed before his arrival. To propose and not just oppose. To come up with alternatives, not merely criticism.

The latter undertaking can be dangerous for the opposition if carried too far. The opposition has to show it is the government-in-waiting by the way it strives to keep the government in check; by how it rises above partisanship when the national interest demands it; and by a relative propensity to reach consensus where that is necessary and possible. It is not in the business of making it easy for the government by spoon-feeding it with what to do. Much less by helping it avoid mistakes. The idea that the opposition of the day should cheerfully clap the government, its natural nemesis, is by definition, unnatural.

That background is well known to politicians and has been prevalent ever since the party system was born. For every apparent negative that the opposition utters, it can find a fitting example of the government-of-the day doing the same thing when its party was itself in opposition. Cynical? Not really - simply realistic. Yet, even in the context of strict realism, there are boundaries that should not be reached let alone exceeded. They should not, but very often are. One of them is the age of political adversaries. Enough examples raised their silly head in our lifetime.

Twenty-five years ago some bright spark in the Nationalist Party came up with the idea of calling Dom Mintoff, then Labour leader and Prime Minister, an old man - that old man living at Castile, ran the rubbishing. There were worse political lapses, as in the "crucify him, crucify him" mass meeting. But, holding his age against Mintoff, because Eddie Fenech Adami, PN and opposition leader, was a good number of years younger, was shallow to an extreme.

In 1992 along came Alfred Sant. The leader of the Labour opposition was also a good few years younger than Fenech Adami. Some bright spark in the MLP ranks took it upon himself to make that a line of spin and attack.

It was one occasion where my short temper showed itself within the MLP, though I couldn't counter when asked who, among the PN, had similarly spoken out when Nationalist spinners projected Mintoff as a rickety old man. I used a stronger argument, that two wrongs do not make a right - nappies are for babies and very senior citizens, not politicians. The silliness stopped.

Now it has resurfaced in an inverted form. No politician is being ridiculed for being old. The new Labour leader is being targeted by PN spinners for being young. As soon as he was elected they selected their preferred line of attack.

They started calling him and writing his name as Joe, instead of Joseph. While they were congratulating and welcoming him, showing him round their new HQs and sharing banter with him, they began suggesting he was immature. The spinning continued and is now in the open with the repeated charge that he is inexperienced.

If this is the best that politicians can offer after the bad age-factor examples by both Nationalist and Labour spinners, then heaven help us in the dark days and years that are swiftly approaching us from the terrible turmoil of the global economy.

Muscat is indeed young. As such he cannot claim bags of experience. But surely, you appraise a politician on the basis of what he says and does, not on how long in the tooth he may or may not be. This is more than a case of Austin Gatt using his well known style and language against the leader of the opposition. Gatt, at least, stands up to be seen and counted, even if he does on occasion mouth his appraisal for lip readers to make out, as in the budget debate. Others do it less openly, but no less viciously for all that.

We live in precarious times and they are going to get worse. Muscat's line, that there are effectively two prime ministers and that Lawrence Gonzi is double-faced, may not be the best political way to tear into the wreckage that the government is bringing about in this messy patch of its life.

Resorting to low politics of rubbishing him is hardly the best way the Nationalists can counter their early season adversary. We live in times of stress and they will get worse. We need strong government action and strong watch dogging by the opposition. Silly games we do not need at all.