Some weeks ago I returned to the subject of anonymous letters, of which I had received dozens during my years in politics. Whoever sends them always tends to be cruel, though none were so in my case as much as those I received during the religious dispute of the 1960s.

Where the game fails and casts politics into disrepute is when disagreement is wrapped up in personal attacks- Lino Spiteri

I took up the issue again because, after quite a gap, I had received another anonymous letter. I had torn it up without reading it, as I had resolved to do after another unsigned missive I had received in reaction something I had written in this column.

That had been unrelated to political criticism. Rather the opposite. I had written about a former political adversary who had passed away. I referred to his good points and the instances when we shared positive experiences, and also humorous experiences, for politics can have its smiling moments. The anonymous letter I received was intended to point out that my deceased political colleague allegedly had other, less praiseworthy sides to him.

I was ashamed I had read the letter and resolved that, henceforth, as soon as I realised that a letter was anonymous I would tear it up, something I recommend. You can usually tell a letter is anonymous. At least, I can usually tell, perhaps because I have received so many of them.

I wish to fill out the record of my earlier column. Not long after it appeared, I received a signed letter. The person who wrote it told me he wished to apologise for the distress he (had) caused me with his anonymous letter referring to a departed political opponent. The majority of human beings have their good points, he wrote, but on the other hand they also have shortcomings.

“But in my humble opinion,” he concluded, “the goodness that a person provides together with the harm he causes should form part of his legacy.”

I disagree with the gentleman’s conclusion for two reasons. I believe, like the old Latins, that you should say nothing but good of the dead. And I also extend that to the living, not least in politics. Politicians should always be under the public spotlight and held to account for their political actions.

Having chosen a public life they should not fool themselves that they will or should get appreciation and plaudits. When they do good, they are merely fulfilling their duty, though it is comforting to have that recognised. And whatever they do, it is right that it is evaluated critically.

As for their opponents, they should expect to be paid in their own coin by them. Politics is all about the clash of contrast ideas, which in reality starts from differing positions. It is wrong to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But we must not kid ourselves – disagreement between politicians on opposite sides is far, far more common than agreement. Disagreement is the rule. Agreement is the exception.

To test my seemingly-cynical assertion, close your eyes through time and forget the name of the party in opposition. You will find that whichever it is, it is practically always opposing. And that does not happen only in Malta. Watch a parliamentary sitting of our Italian neighbours and more distant English friends, and check whether you ever hear expressions of agreement. Follow any news medium and you will get further confirmation.

In the US the so-called Tea Party has turned the Republican Party into a perennial No-sayer. In Greece the opposition is criticising the government for trying to clear up a mess which is largely of its own making.

Disagreement carried to an extreme is off-putting and can also cause damage to the country, not simply to the other side. But my point is that disagreement is part and parcel of politics.

The late Ian Macleod, a former Tory politician in the UK, caused a stir when he thundered that the duty of the opposition was to oppose. He was, in fact, being honest.

I am not aware that any government politician has countered by saying that the practice of the government is to rubbish the opposition, but that’s what it always does. All over the world.

The real issue is not disagreement, but how it is expressed. It can be expressed elegantly, with oral rapier thrusts, or less elegantly, with broadswords, like Mintoff and Borg Olivier used against each other. It can be expressed using oral bludgeons – I will not name examples but some easily come to mind.

All of that is part of the game. Where the game fails and casts politics into disrepute is when disagreement is wrapped up in personal attacks. Sadly, that happens too.

Sometimes it is done openly, by politicians themselves. At other more frequent times it is done by the party media, individual hacks within it and surreptitiously hired hands. However it is done, it is bad, and wrong.

It may succeed in damaging a political opponent. But it is a boomerang style, to use an imperfect analogy. Once triggered, it begets a predictably similar response.

Unfortunately there is a tendency within our political practice to stoop to personal attacks. It started long ago, more so from the time political parties became more prevalent after the First World War. That’s a long time, but that’s how long it has been.

Political leaders say they eschew it. Sadly, they do not really act strongly enough to snuff it out.

There are no worse personal attacks than those made anonymously. Unless these are attacks made under the pretext of democratic political debate, explained away by the self-imposed hypocritical need to block the other side.

No, I do not agree with the conclusion of the man who had written to me anonymously, though it no more than reflects a broad feeling which also forms part of obituaries of public figures.

But I admire him for his action not to remain anonymous and to reveal his identity to me. I shall destroy his letter and erase his name from my memory. Still I do wish that his decency in attempting to do the right way will stir politicians among today’s crop who resort to making or instigating personal attacks that they can play politics without dirtying themselves.

For after all, that is what those who resort to personal attacks do. And they will be remembered for it.