Never mind for a moment the details of the incident that led the Nationalist MPs to walk out of a parliamentary sitting on Tuesday. What stands out is the message that the action has given to the Labour government.
It is to the effect that, although it had won the election with a landslide majority, this does not mean it can now ride roughshod over everybody. In other words, one interpretation of the walkout can very well be that Labour’s election victory will not be considered as a total walkover.
And that is as it should be for otherwise Labour could very well assume that it can now act as a dictatorship, which would surely be detested not just by Nationalist Party supporters but by the electorate as a whole.
The country is already experiencing a degree of political arrogance that runs diametrically against what Labour preached during the electoral campaign and which was presumably one of the biggest factors that led to its resounding win at the polls.
Labour may think that its massive electoral victory gives it the right to do whatever it pleases and is now constantly bringing up past Nationalist shortcomings to justify actions or moves that would have been considered unthinkable for Labour when it was in Opposition.
Walking out of a parliamentary sitting over disagreement on a breach of privilege complaint might not have been the wisest thing to d but, in a sense, it served a good purpose in that Labour now realises that the new Nationalist Party leadership means business and that it is not going to allow the new Administration to trample on its rights.
As regards the breach of privilege complaint, it would seem that both leaders overreacted, which is possibly the fruit of the kind of political exuberance so much loved locally. But, make no mistake about it, there are very serious implications.
If a member of Parliament is unable to make a political judgment of a given situation that has been publicly considered by many as very perplexing, his role as one of the people’s representatives would naturally be considerably diminished.
Although parliamentary privilege ought not to be abused, as some members have done in other legislatures for so long over the years, it is meant to precisely allow the member to speak freely.
A commissioner of police overruling decisions of his predecessor in a very important case is no light matter and the Opposition Leader’s comment that there must have been political interference by the head of government is a generic political assessment that must have been subscribed to by all those who thought the issue called for a serious explanation.
The change of attitude between one police commissioner and another is far too sharp and too strange not to call for very serious political questioning.
Joseph Muscat has denied the claim and when Simon Busuttil refused to retract or substantiate it, the Prime Minister called for a ruling from the Speaker who found prima facie evidence of breach of privilege. The Opposition has now presented a motion asking for a review of the Speaker’s ruling.
The political barometer is not showing fair weather because there are clear indications that the Government is feeling very uncomfortable by the strong opposition to its lapses from some of the key commitments it made to the electorate.