The early life of this legislature has been marked by an astonishing belligerency. Criticism is not just necessary but also essential. The government has to be kept on its toes. It has to be constantly reminded that it is accountable to the people. Accountability involves the Opposition as the main player on the demand side, the media and the public in so far as it chooses to express itself.
It is not enough to have in place the trappings of democracy, the separation of powers, the rule of law, freedom to associate, free speech, free elections and equality before the law, as well as the other concepts and requirements that must be present in a burgeoning democratic state.
If the Opposition, the media and the public are quiescent in the context of the government’s actions it is inevitable that liberty might be taken with the various aspects and tenets of democracy. That is why the Opposition has to be all the time the alternative government in waiting, to assert and demonstrate that the government will not have it all its own way, that it will be brought to book in terms of the Constitution and that every democratic effort will be made to replace it at the next general elections.
This latter point has taken a fresh meaning elsewhere. Opposition to governments that takes the form of unending street demonstrations and even recourse to arms is not being restricted to states that have despotic rulers. Democratically elected governments are being placed under constant pressure to leave without waiting for a free general election to legitimise alternative rulers.
In this regard, the leading free countries of the world are playing a dangerous game by fanning moves towards regime removal rather than waiting and pressing for regime change to come through the ballot box.
Malta is not into that sort of politics, and God willing will never get there. Nevertheless, the belligerence being demonstrated by the Opposition goes beyond much that has taken place before. It addresses the government and public institutions manned by its appointees in the harsh style and tone that was in vogue in colonial times.
In that era, Malta did not go down the path of sporadic violence, of armed insurgency. The word was made out to be mightier than the extreme power of the colonial masters. The language of political debate could not have been tougher despite the dark shadow of a police force used to serve the colonial master and not the people, as one police commissioner infamously put in the upheaval of 1958 when Britain went on to suspend the Constitution and impose direct colonial rule.
Today’s language and delivery very often reflect those days, rather than the fact that Malta is a democratic republic where power eventually alternates through the articulation of the ballot box. I think the reason this is happening was presaged by the 2008-13 Gonzi administration. Lawrence Gonzi had won the election by no more than a fistful of votes, less than a third of an average quota to earn a seat in Parliament.
The government has to be kept on its toes. It has to be constantly reminded that it is accountable to the people
Normally that would have sobered the almost-humiliated Prime Minister, given that the country was split down the middle. Not Gonzi, though. His response was to tell Joseph Muscat, the Leader of the Opposition, that if he agreed, he would make George Abela, a leading Labourite, President of the Republic. If he did not agree he would nominate a Nationalist person. No consultation. Take it or leave it.
That was a minor move. The major move was for Gonzi to govern as if the people had given him a thumping majority. He stuffed every public sector board or committee with Nationalists or fellow travellers. He looked down on the Leader of the Opposition as if he had no right to be around.
That was reverse psychology with a vengeance, meant to hide the weakness with which the Nationalists retained office. Today’s members of the Nationalist Opposition, with a few exceptions, are acting from a text which says that, no matter how massive the electoral defeat of 2013, we shall oppose, oppose and oppose with rising ferocity.
Initially, one had to say that they acted as if they were still in government. In time, that reading had to change. Holding office is a distant memory but by being constantly belligerent and negative the Opposition would project an image of size and strength it does not have.
The political question is, will such a policy of self-delusion work in that it would gain the Nationalist Party votes? The answer is that such a negative policy would please the grass roots. It might also win back some disaffected Nationalists and other swingers. It helps capitalise on mistakes inevitably made by the government, many of them unnecessary. But would it work enough to shift the Nationalist Party into really being an alternative government by the next general election?
That is too far down the line to read. But the Nationalists’ recent past suggests a reading which it would be unwise to ignore. The Gonzi administration, aside from governing as if it held some massive majority and demonstrating incredible arrogance even towards its supporters, moved on to being totally negative towards Labour.
Starting with unofficial taunts at Muscat because of his youthfulness and journalistic background, it went on to rubbish everything for which Labour stood. Did it work?
The electoral majority achieved by the Labour Party offers a clear reply.
The point is that belligerency and total negativism do not appeal to those who chose to think rather than to swallow whole and regurgitate what politicians say.
People are thinking. They are noting mistakes made by the government. They are also noting that the Nationalists offer little else beyond belligerency and negativism.
They draw their own conclusions about what disgusts them most.