Finally, answers are starting to come out from our political system. The opposition does not have the numbers in the House of Representatives to force an election in that only 34 members out of the 69 MPs who successfully contested the last election voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence in the Gonzi government.
The motion would have only been carried had Nationalist MP Franco Debono voted with the opposition and supported the motion. Dr Debono’s abstention, to boot, triggered, for good measure, the Speaker’s casting vote in favour of the continuation of the present government.
The government, therefore, is without doubt constitutionally allowed to continue in office for the rest of its five-year term and the Prime Minister is the only person the Constitution empowers to call for an election and which, since he has not been defeated by a vote of no confidence, the President would be bound to follow.
The economic, political, financial and institutional stability of the country demands that the season of motions of no confidence now comes to an end. Labour were more than justified in presenting the motion of no confidence in view of the unfavourable declarations made by Dr Debono in regard to the Prime Minister.
In fact, arguably, Labour were institutionally bound to test the stability of the government because, according to the Constitution, the Prime Minister “is the person who has the confidence of the House of Representatives”. And a vote of no confidence is precisely intended to prove conclusively the lack of confidence of the House in the Prime Minister. This has manifestly not taken place.
Labour, however, must now resist the temptation to delegitimate the government any further. The Constitution does not impose that a government be supported by a majority from one party. It requires that as Prime Minister there be a person who is a member of Parliament and who is supported by the majority of its members.
By virtue of yesterday’s vote, Malta has evolved in a unique “coalition” mode of government in that there are 34 MPs who have very clearly stated and voted strictly in line with the government’s Whip. These are supported by one other member who is declaredly outside the influence of the Nationalist Party’s Whip but who is prepared to keep the government in office from the “outside”.
This is very similar to the situation obtaining in the United Kingdom where the government is sustained by a coalition of two parties that have very little in common other than the need to provide stability to the country. There is often open dissent and criticism voiced in public between the two parties but when it comes to sustaining the continuation of the government against efforts by the opposition to bring it down they join up again.
We all remember when, recently, the Europhile leader of the Lib-Dems publicly distanced himself from the Conservative Prime Minister’s position that had isolated Britain by blocking the measures which all the other EU members wished to take to sustain the euro.
The government, therefore, has a majority in the House and is in its full powers. Yet, the ensuring of stability leaves the country open to a number of vital questions for the future. Will there be more goodwill on the part of Dr Debono to act as a “coalition” partner with the government, which he has consistently refused to drop from power?
The country may not have wished an election to be so rudely sprung upon it. Equally, however, the constituted bodies and the economy as a whole were far from comfortable with Dr Debono’s open defiance of the Nationalist government’s Whip and the uncertainty it generated within the political system.
Yesterday’s vote may mean that we should not panic every time the PN and Dr Debono quarrel openly in public, on condition, that is, that the government’s programme, approved by the majority of the electorate, continues to be carried out by the government and that the Budget which has already been approved by Parliament be allowed to be implemented without any further hiccups.
If ever there was need to prove that “politics is the art of the possible” then the constitutional and political events of the past months have more than amply done so.