Confidence votes, then and now

That Labour would not have confidence in a Nationalist government is logical. Yet Labour’s run-up to the widely ex­pected motion of no confidence verges on the melodramatic.

Labour not only presented a vote of no confidence in the government but to boot added a “guillotine” motion to limit the discussion to the one debate which will determine the future of this legislature. Why did they do so? Why did they not bother to do so for the debate of no confidence in Minister Austin Gatt? Labour had better start convincing the electorate that to them the institutions are more important than winning power at all costs.

Belatedly the Labour Party realised that the correct constitutional procedure to bring clarity to the present political uncertainty was to stop insisting that the Prime Minister call for an election but for them to present a motion of no confidence according to the Constitution. The Prime Minister and the present Cabinet have the confidence of the electorate and may continue to run the country even after Parliament is dissolved and the date of the general election is known.

Labour are correct in presenting the motion of no confidence so that a series of constitutional procedures can be activated. They, however, played up again to melodrama by painting a picture that the Constitution imposed on the Prime Minister the need to present a motion of confidence in the government.

If at least 35 members of Parliament show no confidence in the government, the Prime Minister has three days in which either to resign or to advise the President to dissolve Parliament and hold an election. Surely Labour must remember from the Sant-Mintoff saga of 1997-1998 that the Constitution does not provide what happens when the Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence called by himself. We all remember the endless speculation which accompanied the weeks it took Alfred Sant to call an election following Dom Mintoff’s vote against his Cottonera project.

Franco Debono should note that in 1998 Mr Mintoff always refused to vote with the Opposition on a vote of no confidence. He only voted against Dr Sant on the Cottonera project since Mr Mintoff never wanted to force an election on Labour. He wanted to put Dr Sant’s leadership in question. If there still exists any consistency in Dr Debono’s thinking then he should do a Mintoff and not vote with the Opposition on Monday. This would allow the PN to continue the internal debate on those internal matters raised by Dr Debono himself.

The Prime Minister is currently going through the motions of seeing if the challenge against him as Leader made by Dr Debono enjoys any support within the Nationalist Party. Up till now Dr Debono stands isolated within the Nationalist Party Parliamentary Group and the Executive Committee.

There now remains the verdict of the National Council of the party. If Dr Debono’s position is not supported over there then the President of Malta knows that the party entrusted by the electorate to govern the country is behind the Prime Minister. The President would also know that there exists no alternative under the present conditions to the holding of a general election if the vote of no confidence were carried in the House.

The unfortunate thing about the country heading fast towards the election is there is no institutional reason why everything has to done in such a convulsed manner. Labour had already withdrawn its willingness to discuss any institutional work other than the no-confidence issue. This was spelt out at last week’s meeting of the Parliamentary Affairs Committee. There is an important financial Bill waiting to be passed to allow the state to obtain financing at this very delicate economic moment. The national interest would expect that at least there is agreement that these will be passed. After all, the budgetary measures have already been approved by Dr Debono.

One important difference between the present situation and that of 1998 is in the personalities which rocked the boat. In 1998 Mr Mintoff was defending his decades-long “Mintoffian” legacy built over a parliamentary career extending for over 50 years, a party leadership of 36 years and a premiership he occupied four times over 16 years.

More damning to Dr Debono’s legacy is that when Mr Mintoff brought down the Boffa government, he did not do so on his own. He won the leadership of the labour movement, ousting Dr Boffa. At the moment Dr Debono is isolated, certainly within the Parliamentary Group and the Executive Committee.

Should he not see what support he has in the National Council before determining the fate of the government elected directly by the electorate in 2008 with the addition of four extra seats?