Rocking boats and horses…

I am most times mystified at the lack of logic shown in the comments that follow most stories in The Times online to the point that to avoid undue exasperation I am starting to avoid reading them. Shooting your mouth off when you have not read and reread a particular article or opinion piece is not conducive to having a civilised and rational discussion about any particular topic and often leads other “commenters”, as my colleague I.M. Beck, calls them, off track.

Our political climate is still unhealthy with governments being elected by default…- Kenneth Zammit Tabona

My opinion piece last week evinced several online non sequiturs including that of being called a party diehard, to which party I can only guess. However, you may be sure that the only type of party that I am a diehard for is that of the purely social type… say no more.

Let me redefine what may not have been clear in last week’s article. You and I are not MPs who have been elected to Parliament by the people because we wear the colours and share the beliefs and ideologies of a particular political party but we are ostensibly free spirits who are able to express ourselves in favour or against the policies and actions of any government or organisation irrespective of political colour or creed. That is our constitutional right.

However, and here lies the crunch, although all MPs inclusive of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition may also enjoy this constitutional right, the post of member of Parliament representing a particular party morally binds each and every MP to the ideologies and beliefs of his/her political party. Ergo, while Franco Debono can exercise a political right to criticise his own party, he should not do that to the extent that he could seriously undermine the government he forms part of. What he can do, and, in fact, has done, is force the issue to be discussed internally. However, abstaining in a parliamentary vote of no confidence knowing full well that his party is hanging on to power with a majority of one seat is what I call maverick behaviour. Dr Debono is bound by party loyalty but you and I are not.

Hark back to 1998 when Dom Mintoff decided to be Alfred Sant’s painful thorn in the flesh. Despite the fact that for a number of reasons I was not happy with the Sant government as I was at that time employed by the erstwhile Mid-Med Bank, I thought that the Nationalist Party’s assiduous encouragement of Mr Mintoff’s controversial stance was, what those brought up in the British tradition would call, “not quite cricket”.

Dr Sant called an early election and lost it not because of Mr Mintoff but because of the energy bills.

That Dr Sant remained Leader of the Opposition for another decade is a prime example of how not to run a party as, in fact, he ran it into defeat after defeat till he finally called it a day in 2008 when the damage in the Labour Party was practically irremediable.

Three years later the open policy of the new Opposition Leader indicates a more inclusive attitude, which, doubtlessly, stems from the PL realising that by alienating 50 per cent of the island with the traditional “jew magħna jew kontra tagħna” (for us or against us) battle cry there is absolutely nothing to be gained. Both parties should know by now that elections and their results are not there for the canvassers and their adherents to have a field day to the detriment of the good ship Malta but to steer this good ship through the treacherous waters of global financial threats, wars, unrest and social suffrage. As we are now part of the EU and the eurozone to boot these should be our top priority.

Therefore, the more people see the light and are able to think for themselves about which party is best suited to the need and aspirations of Malta the better it is for all of us. Our political climate is still unhealthy with governments being elected by default and us having to vote with a gun to our head.

I would not like to see the PL elected in 2013 just because people are “fed up” of the PN and its so-called arrogant attitudes but because the PL offers an attractive alternative style of doing things and can, at least for the first term offer Malta a refreshing “new-broom-sweeps-clean” government without all the barnacles that have attached themselves to the PN after more than two decades in harness. If the PL does not deliver an electoral manifesto that is pragmatic and realisable then the floater will not go for it. Same goes for the PN. And then what?

Then there are all those who will be loathe to vote for another party as they hold politically appointed office. In 1996, Dr Sant kept most PN appointees on. Whether Dr Muscat intends to do the same and not rock the boat with a violent post-election earthquake remains to be seen.

However, one must keep in mind that political appointments should be made taking the appointees’ expertise and abilities into consideration and not his/her party loyalty. This, in my opinion, is one of the hallmarks of PN success.

We are too small and too vulnerable to be divisive any longer and ministers like Austin Gatt, whose attitude has brought about all this unrest, should bow out gracefully, which is very sad, for, as I have always maintained and stated, the man is a doer. However, his mode d’emploi sucks.

That MPs can hold their own party to ransom internally is neither here nor there but, if by doing so in Parliament, they undermine or even unseat a government before its time then that, in my book, at least, is not cricket. No Sir, not at all!

kzt@onvol.net