The Nationalist Party’s experience of this Parliament has been searing. Perhaps not traumatic, as the 1996-98 Parliament was for Labour, whose guts were wrenched by the sight of an idol laying the party’s leadership to waste. But the frustrating sight of backbenchers like Franco Debono and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando challenging Lawrence Gonzi’s authority will have burned itself into the PN’s consciousness.

The searching journalistic profile, probing and impartial, remains the most reliable form of scrutiny- Ranier Fsadni

It’s at such critical junctures that important lessons are drawn, the kind that will ensure the experience is not repeated. Unfortunately, some of the guiding principles that have been enunciated, in various quarters, over the last few months won’t help us and may even add to our difficulties.

On Tuesday, this newspaper’s leader gave a pungent assessment of Debono the parliamentarian: the excessive self-regard, self-serving contradictions, the lot. I subscribe to virtually all of it. But other critics, in seeking to remind Debono of his grave responsibilities, have sometimes misrepresented them.

Reminding an MP that, in practice, he owes his seat to having accepted his political party’s ticket is one thing. Insisting, however, that an MP is merely a delegate of his voters is another. It’s an unsustainable principle, particularly in our times.

An MP represents all his constituents, not just those who voted him in. Furthermore, he has to vote on issues that were not on the political programme. Our system requires MPs to represent us in two ways: as people instructed by us on how they should vote and as people entrusted by us to use their best judgement on our behalf.

Of course it’s a contradiction. But, in practice, the two roles can be held together. Let us not forget that, while the self-serving MPs dominated the headlines, the last five years have actually seen many more examples of loyal dissent, where PN backbenchers have both expressed criticism and accepted party discipline.

The future is likely to see more backbench dissent for a simple reason. We live in times of economic and social upheaval. The political agenda itself is unsettled. We should expect that any parliamentary term will throw up radical issues not covered by electoral programmes.

In such a situation, the wrong thing would be to frown on any dissent whatsoever. That would lock out of our political process all the social and cultural voices that need representation. It would increase the disconnect between Parliament and society, which would eventually undermine the political process itself.

There is no good alternative to a system that draws on an MP’s personal judgement. Paradoxically, to do away with it would mean fewer of us are represented, rather than more. But can we therefore do something to make sure that the candidates we choose from can be trusted to behave responsibly?

It’s been suggested that individuals should be psychologically profiled before being selected. Given the experience of the last few years, I can understand someone saying this to let off steam. But as a serious proposal it’s unworkable.

Some individuals themselves approach the political parties to ask to be allowed to run. Many others, however, are wooed by the parties themselves.

It’s contradictory to make overtures to someone and impose a profiling test. If you want them, how can you claim not to know if they’re reliable?

Any candidate of substance, in any case, will very likely react by rejecting the invitation. The imposition of a test will, therefore, either not permit the party to have a certain kind of candidate or else it will be imposed on some candidates but not others. It’s difficult to see such a party campaign on a platform of non-discrimination.

In any case, we cannot ignore how political parties game the system. Under the current dispensation, it is rational for them to accept slightly dodgy (though not completely embarrassing) candidates in the belief that they will never be elected but are sufficiently dogged to win the party valuable votes.

In the circumstances, the best practical solution is a form of profiling, one which has been tried and tested in most liberal democracies, although not nearly enough in Malta. The searching journalistic profile, probing and impartial, remains the most reliable form of scrutiny. Too many MPs were let off scot-free during the last few years.

However, if a parliamentary crisis does arise anyway, how soon should a Prime Minister lance the boil and opt for early elections?

Alfred Sant was accused of acting prematurely and Gonzi delaying to put partisan interest over the national interest. Who got it wrong?

In passing, let me observe that it’s unreasonable to expect politicians to conclude that the national interest is better served by their not being in power. Anyone who puts in those long hours and puts up with the criticism is overwhelmingly likely to believe, honestly, that the partisan and national interests are convergent.

However, I think the bias should always be in favour of prolonging the life of a Parliament, as much as possible.

The premature end of a government will have a destabilising influence on all future governments (as the collapse of the Sant government did). The slightest whiff of disagreement or debate within the governing group and talk of collapse begins to spread. Given the impact on the markets, it may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The reaction to such possibilities will be precisely the kind of government we don’t want: one afraid of long-term measures and of internal debate.

ranierfsadni@europe.com