The bold and the beautifully mature

Over the years that I have observed George Abela the politician, he has earned my respect. To the interpretation of the President's role he will bring, alongside political experience and gravitas, a twinkle in the eye and, when he perceives injustice, controlled anger, flickering in his voice.

I shall be proud to have Dr Abela as my President. But I am far less sure I will ever be proud of the gush that has spouted all over the place since his nomination.

It is, we are told, historic, bold and a sign of national maturity and unity. Yet, each one of those virtues seems less definite, the closer it is inspected.

Historic? Only to a degree. For the first time, Nationalist parliamentarians will be voting into Presidency someone who used to be a political adversary. But it will not be the first time Nationalist MPs have voted for someone known to have an affinity with another political party: Sir Anthony Mamo was by background no natural PN sympathiser.

Labour MPs will break with no custom in voting for Dr Abela: They have never voted against a nominee with Labour affinities. If their approval of Dr Abela seems remarkable now, it is because it was virtually the same MPs, only five years ago, who turned him down. Has it already been forgotten that Lawrence Gonzi, in talks with Charles Mangion (then representing Opposition Leader Alfred Sant) had brought up Dr Abela's name before pushing ahead with nominating Eddie Fenech Adami?

Five years ago, Dr Mangion waved Dr Abela's name away. Later, Labour invented a constitutional prerequisite and said that a President needed to be a "father figure". That's right, folks. Back then, Labour made it official: President Agatha Barbara (1981-87), female, unmarried and with no children, qualified as a paternal figure, while an actual father of two adults did not. What a difference five years make. Apparently Dr Abela is now paternal enough.

Of course, we know the real reason why Dr Abela was turned down. Yet, it is virtually the same Labour parliamentary group that supported that decision... Thus, we should pause a while longer before deciding that they represent a mature political system.

We should also pause before judging, in its turn, the Prime Minister's nomination, if maturity is going to be defined as putting national interest before the partisan. Five years ago, the public gave little weight to Dr Gonzi's offer to nominate Dr Abela (which is probably why it has been largely forgotten). It was presumed then, I guess, that it was the opening gambit of a partisan strategy (although gambits can always be accepted). What has changed to make that consideration irrelevant? The online comments on the nomination news have identified several partisan interests that might be served (even if simultaneously with the national interest).

Indeed, all the talk by party leaders about national interest and unity has had a common motive: partisanship, the coming European Parliament elections and the floating voter. Arnold Cassola has been trying to seem relevant. And why else would the major leaders have each concluded their statements about going beyond partisanship by directly citing their respective political slogan?

The fact is that Dr Abela cannot, at this stage, be described as a unifying figure. Too many Nationalists still resent the old adversary, some even citing his backroom work prior to the 1981 election. And too many Labourites have still to reconcile his 1998 departure from party functions with their idea of loyalty.

In time, Dr Abela will win most of them over, as have other Presidents. Meanwhile, the irony is that "unity" is defined by the political parties for partisan reasons. They congratulate themselves for transcending self-interest - and in so doing, lobby for our vote. And in the interest of their current definition of national unity, they divide the nation: between the bold and beautifully mature, on the one hand, and the rash and primitively tribal, on the other.

The more profound irony, however, has been this: The process of nominating the President has revealed the personage who has the de facto Presidential powers in our political system. From beginning to end, it is the Prime Minister who has determined the choice and pulled the considerable levers at his disposal to get others to agree.

Dr Gonzi has to play the game he finds himself in and he plays it very well indeed. In this episode, he has leaked better, manoeuvred better and spun better than his opponents. We are lucky that he is fundamentally trustworthy, given his powers of office and considerable ability in using them.

But should we depend on luck? Or should we get our written Constitution to recognise the distribution of power in our actual dispensation - that we have a Presidential system of government? Now that would be a sign of political maturity.

ranierfsadni@europe.com