Never mind the clutch of Young Turks who now pack the PN National Council - the man of the moment for the Nationalist Party ranks is Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg. It was he who took the immediate heat generated by the BWSC-Enemalta extension affair off the government. Dr Borg brought that about by claiming that Labour MP Justyne Caruana had voted "no" on the motion put forward by her own side.
The way all hell broke loose in the highest institution in the land is now well documented. Certainly, far better documented than how Dr Caruana actually voted. She claims she voted yes. So say, on oath, all her 33 Labour colleagues. For the Nationalist side five say they heard her say no. The Speaker could not hear clearly.
We live in an electronic age yet, two weeks after the eruption, it still has not been possible for an official electronic review of the weak parliamentary recording of the tape to be made. A Labourite has attempted to make the tape clearer but the Nationalists will not hear of that. An impartial effort is required.
Does it matter that this has not come about? It matters to the dignity of Parliament. It matters to the Labour Party. It matters above all to the importance of electoral democracy for Malta. For, defocusing attention from the BSWC affair, so extensively qualified by the Auditor General, is not the only outcome of the parliamentary fracas.
Labour did not simply lose its cool and march out of the House in protest at Mr Speaker's ruling. It also declared that it would not attend meetings of the House committee intended to strengthen democracy until the Deputy Prime Minister apologised to Dr Caruana. I find that ill-conceived of the Labour Party and very worrying at a national level.
The committee was the best existing chance to find a way to discuss and hopefully agree upon an essential amendment to the electoral system, which is still flawed. Thanks to two constitutional amendments ultimately made by consensus we are assured that whoever gets 50 per cent plus one of valid votes (or a plurality when only two parties return MPs) but does not gain a majority of seats, an adjustment mechanism will give a one-seat majority in the House to the party with the higher number of votes.
The mechanism is important, but inexact. That was shown, for instance, in 1996 when Labour was adjusted to a one seat majority when strict proportionality would have given it three. It can happen again. If it does, proportional democracy will be denied again. From the national standpoint, it is shameful that the system has not yet been corrected to avoid that.
From the Labour standpoint the amendment is urgent. The party stands at least a reasonable chance of being elected three years from now. Even seasoned Nationalists are saying that the PN has been too long in office. It is not improbable to conceive that Labour might get a majority of votes but a minority of seats, as happened in 1996.
It will still govern, and probably forcefully so. But it will be hounded and harassed by the Nationalist opposition, as it has done in the past and as the Labour opposition is doing now. Why should Labour jam the operations of the very House committee that could bring a correction about?
The Labour position, echoed by the Labour Whip in an interview in yesterday's MaltaToday, is that the committee to strengthen democracy is not really functioning, anyway. Former Speaker Louis Galea too was critical some months ago. If that is the case it is up to Labour to publicly exhort the new Speaker to focus on the issue, and to expose the Nationalist side should they drag their feet.
An apology from Dr Borg to Dr Caruana won't be forthcoming, unless the House tape of her vote confirms electronically her affirmation. Ironically, if Labour maintains its boycott of the democracy committee it is effectively giving the Deputy Prime Minister a veto on its chances of removing a potential impediment to a possible or likely Labour government next time round.