Crossing the floor

It hasn't grown to more than a strong whisper yet, but it's there. It suggests that the government is in troubled waters which could pile distress on the Prime Minister due to his tiny one-seat majority in the House of Representatives. The underlying implication is that there is disquiet within the Nationalist parliamentary group which could lead to a desertion or more. I believe that is fanciful nonsense.

Yes, it can happen that not all government MPs privately agree with the official line on that or another matter. But external manifestation of such disagreement is rare in our political culture, let alone desertions. Not that there have not been instances of crossing of the floor. I recall three since the War. But all of them confirm that the unanimity culture tends to be broken only rarely, and never with self-interest being ignored.

One of the three instances concerned John J. Cole. In the Mintoff-Boffa split, Cole, who had been appointed a minister by Prime Minister Paul Boffa, had sided with him and joined his Malta Workers' Party. He was part of the Boffa-Borg Olivier coalitions in the early 50s and again served as a minister in them. There came a time when he resigned from the Cabinet, voted against the government in early 1955 and toppled it. There used to be a strong rumour that he was encouraged to do so by the British Governor's office in Malta.

Whatever the reason, he did it. The result was not any form of wilderness, but a general election which saw Cole contesting on behalf of Labour. The party gained office, and Cole was given a seat in the Cabinet.

In the election of 1962 the Nationalist government and the combined opposition started off with 25 members each. Soon enough, Gozitan Kurunat Attard, of Herbert Ganado's Democratic Party, declared his dissatisfaction with his party's stance and crossed the floor to the government side. Again, that MP did not go into the wilderness. He became a government backbench stalwart.

So did Alfred Baldacchino a few years later when Labour regained office in 1971. He decided to desert the Nationalist opposition to become a Labour government backbencher.

The fact is that political and personal logic does not desert parliamentarians when they come to a point where they are not 100 per cent at ease with what is going on in their side. Nor does it unravel because an MP feels disgruntled, because his/her expectations have not been met, or after some reshuffle which sees the MP turned out of ministerial trappings.

What is in it for a Member of Parliament to cross the floor from the government side towards the opposition, in circumstances that would leave him/her a political pariah within the opposition party as much as in his former quarters?

Admittedly such logic does not seem to have swayed Dom Mintoff when, in 1998, he infamously voted against his side on a motion which Prime Minister Alfred Sant and the rest of the Cabinet had turned into one of confidence. Mintoff's 'No' vote turned him into a Labour pariah and did, in fact, lead to a premature election.

But the logic of the rebellion, I continue to believe, was not inherent in that aftermath. Mintoff, a very seasoned parliamentarian, knew that a government falls only if it is defeated on a motion of confidence, or on a money bill, being a defeat which it cannot quickly overturn. The Cottonera motion did not fall in the confidence category.

My belief is that Mintoff did not expect Sant to really call a new election and that he expected someone from within the parliamentary group and the rest of the MLP to rebel against Sant and lead to his replacement as Prime Minister.

The old fox of Maltese politics miscalculated - there were no takers for his stratagem. There will be no similar miscalculation on the Nationalist side, apart from the fact that there is no Mintoff there. Which is not to say that there is no disgruntlement, that internally that there not be will be discussions which are more heated than usual, or that externally there will not be the occasional breaking of ranks as happened over the St John's Co-Cathedral Museum proposal.

Life is not and will not become a political bed of roses for Lawrence Gonzi, not even in the inner sanctum of his party. Nevertheless I'm sure he does not lead sleepless nights, wondering whether any rebellion is going to lead to defeat on some matter or another in the House of Representatives. Much less will he feel that there is any threat from someone with ambition. Political ambition is made of different stuff than the occasional public or internal bark.

Leaks from within the Nationalist Party to the Labour side which suggest there are axes to grind in the PN will lead to political fun and merriment. They will serve as distractions which will not raise Gonzi's humour. Yet neither will they make him wonder whether he will last the course.

So it will come to pass that the Prime Minister will lead for a full term, of which a fifth has already gone by. The question will be what happens in four years' time, should the Labour Party be truly resurgent under a Joseph Muscat resolute not to burden his leadership with old baggage.