Moving beyond malicious intent

Since any democracy needs a robust Opposition to keep the government of the day in check, I must say that I was baffled by the Opposition’s flat refusal to accept to serve on a bipartisan committee on economic growth.

It is worrying that the Opposition has failed to realise that it is time to move on to a new direction, style and manner of doing politics

Had this committee been given full executive powers in the sense that the Opposition would have been held accountable for any malpractices and misjudgments the Government might have made during the execution of its administrative and executive duties, then I would have very well understood their reluctance to do so.

But to merely shirk from shouldering such responsibility has nothing to do with a misinterpretation on the Government’s part of the effective role of the Opposition.

Even worse were the gratuitous conclusions reached by pro-PN apologists who came out with a series of bizarre conclusions. These included: that the Opposition’s role is to monitor what the Government does; that it cannot act as its consultant; that if it accepts to take part in the Administration, it would then be forming part of the decision-making process; that to do so would clash with what its constitutional role should be.

And even far worse, that the Government may have offered such a possibility maliciously, to be able to argue that the PN formed part of the team if something goes wrong after decisions are taken.

Or else, that Government does not understand what the role of the Opposition is. It is worrying indeed that the Opposition, together with its groupies, seem to have failed to realise that it is time to move on to a new direction, style and manner of doing politics.

I remember that when we had proposed a Public Accounts Com­mittee (PAC)-styled committee on Malta Environment and Planning Authority issues during the discussion on the so-called Mepa reform, the then Prime Minister had claimed that in pushing forward such a proposal Labour had the malicious intent of expecting to sanction and or approve building permits from the Opposition benches. This was always and remains far from the truth.

Neither our proposals then when in Opposition nor our recent proposal on an economic growth bipartisan committee were in any way intended to give the Government an excuse to shed and or share any of its executive responsibilities.

When financial services legislation was approved on a consensual basis ever since the mid-1990s, it was always the government of the day that had the final say even though merit was shared equally by both sides for having steered the country in a positive way forward; something for which both parties represented in Parliament should be congratulated.

This in no way dented the government of the day’s full right to exercise its executive powers.

The same can be said for such other committees as the Foreign and European Affairs Committee. Particularly under the chairmanship of Jason Azzopardi and Michael Frendo there was always full consultation and agreement on practically all issues under review, and whenever we travelled abroad as a committee, be it to the US, Libya, the Emirates, Russia or China, we always spoke with one voice.

As can be testified by the chairpersons mentioned, there were various occasions when the Opposition put forward positive proposals during the said meetings that not only showed a sense of purpose and direction, but that also helped strengthen the Government’s hand in the sense that our collective effort showed to one and all that we meant business as one team – without in any way denting the demarcation line that should always exist between the government and opposition of the day.

In other countries such an approach is frequently resorted to particularly when the national interest is at stake.

I very well understand that until yesterday, the Opposition might have been in a state of limbo as well as in a transition mode.

I cannot exclude that it might be still in two minds as to whether to be a constructive Opposition or else one that can try and mobilise the rank and file after the overwhelming defeat suffered at the polls.

But it is indeed worrying to see the Opposition declining such a well-intentioned and long expressed offer of goodwill that reflects a new way of doing politics. Even more worrying was that the Opposition even patted itself on the back for doing so.

All this reminds me of the days when I had chaired the PAC. It is no mean feat to be complimented for my handling of this task even by former committee members like former minister and MP Austin Gatt .

But as anyone can testify, even though we had taken the Government to task on various issues, never did we ever try to encroach on its executive and decision-making process.

To come forward with positive proposals in an economic growth committee would have kept the two roles still clearly defined; with long-established demarcation lines.

It is not my intention to adopt a paternalistic approach towards an Opposition that may be still finding its feet after the last electoral defeat.

But together with others, I find it worrying indeed that the Opposition does not yet seem to have learnt the lesson of the election defeat. Not only about the extent of the loss suffered but even more so about the reasons that actually led to such a defeat.

brincat.leo@gmail.com