Legitimacy of organised dissent

The powers-that-be have had their say. Wrongly, they assert that the opposition should refrain from tabling motions that in any way censure the government or put it in bad light. Conveniently, they argue that the opposition bench is being highly opportunistic, quasi sadistic to say the least.

Regretfully, the primus inter pares lambasted the opposition as one abdicating from its responsibility to contribute towards increasing our nation’s wealth.

Never before was hypocrisy been at its best. The level of unfair and unjust criticism has reached unparalleled height.

Let it be made abundantly clear to all and sundry that the worst lessons ever given of how an opposition should not behave were those given by the Nationalist Party when in opposition (1981-1987). Deliberately they chose to denigrate Parliament by boycotting it for a number of years after not having attained the required majority of seats in Parliament to govern the country.

Can we ever forget how boycotts became the order of the day. Small businesses choosing to advertise their goods and services on the national station were singled out and served as lambs on the sacrificial altar to the extent of causing them to face financial ruin.

The writing was on the wall for all to see. Aided by foreign interference in domestic affairs, they wilfully and without the slightest scruple opted for hatred campaigns and character assassinations against the then legally and democratically elected Labour government.

Equally, revolting was the deplorable incident in Dingli Street, Sliema, where Nationalist hard core sympathisers and acid-tongue critics had responded ferociously to the encouragement of Nationalist speakers addressing a mass meeting by repeatedly insisting that then Prime Minister Dom Mintoff be nailed to a cross.

And, yet, these people pride themselves of being holier than the Pope. Tell it to the marines!

To better fulfil its democratic responsibilities, the opposition qua opposition is rightly regarded as a legitimate form of organised dissent, where, constitutionally speaking, the Leader of the Opposition is legally recognised. It’s not rocket science to understand that in order to be an effective opposition in terms of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, as is the case in this country, the opposition resorts to a myriad of tools to keep the government members and Cabinet ministers on their toes. Judging by Erskine May, censure motions, together with adjournments, Private Members’ Bills, parliamentary questions, to name just a few of the means at MPs’ disposal, are fundamental to the principle of the legitimacy of organised dissent.

So, for heaven’s sake, let’s not even think of suppressing the obligation that any opposition party has if and when it feels that the workings of a Cabinet minister need to be kept in check.

It would only be a disservice to democracy if the opposition were to either renounce to or be denied this sacrosanct right.

The Nationalist Party should redeem itself and pledge to support the opposition’s parliamentary rights. So let it be! Come on, all the country wants is a different kind of thought in politics not the usual kind of old tactics.

(The author is a Labour Party electoral candidate on the eighth and 12th district.)