In some regards, over the past five years, the presidency of George Abela has had the makings and appeal of a fairy tale. He became popular for his humble demeanour, his winning smile, the way he reached out to the people with activities of popular appeal he cheerfully led in aid of the needy via contributions to the Community Chest Fund.
He also delivered a number of speeches with a socio-political context not normally associated with the President, making some ask whether he was truly a president for all the people, given some of his moral stances and reservations, and others applaud his courage in breaching spaces hitherto closed to the presidency.
It is in the latter assessment that one finds the reason for little surprise to be expressed now that the fairy tale suddenly is about to end with a twist in the tail.
Media reports that President Abela is not disposed to sign the Civil Unions Bill once it has been given a third reading by the House of Representatives caused widespread amazement. A friend of mine, vastly seasoned in political observation and analysis, texted me early on Thursday morning to tell me he was flabbergasted at the Bill outcome.
I caught up with the report in Times of Malta and silently shook my head. I was not flabbergasted. Not even surprised.
I had been expecting this development. It ties in with Abela’s moral convictions. That it risks becoming a constitutional issue is by the way and had better be understood before too many misleading things are said in the ensuing debate.
According to the Constitution, the President of the Republic is obliged to sign bills put before him after they have been approved by the House of Representatives. That is where democracy is embedded. MPs, or rather the absolute majority of them, are empowered to act on behalf of the people who elected them. They are the legislators. The President, to put boldly if seemingly crudely, is in this function a mere rubber stamp.
That is not to say that the President may not gently draw the attention of the Prime Minister as a Bill is being debated in the House, that it is deficient and could be improved, as one or two, wielding their own technical knowhow, are known to have done. But not even that signifies their personal agreement with a Bill.
To sign it and turn it into an Act of Parliament – Parliament being the President plus the House of Representatives acting together – the President has only to be satisfied that it is technically correct. He may disagree with what it embodies, as he may disagree with what the Prime Minister and the Cabinet make him say in the President’s speech at the inauguration of a legislature. But that is besides the case. He has a job to do, and he does it. He signs on the dotted line.
It is likely that the presidency of Abela will be marked and mostly remembered in time by this constitutional glitch
Except, that is, where he disagrees with a Bill or provisions in it as a matter of conscience.
On such a rare occasion a completely different game comes into play. Behind the scenes, the President may try to persuade the Prime Minister to meet his objection(s), not to embarrass him.
If the Prime Minister listens respectfully but refuses the President’s entreaties, the President is left facing the mirror on his wall, where his conscience stares back searchingly at him.
He is the sole arbiter of what happens next. And that, in the rare instances that such cases have a risen elsewhere, is that the President resigns, even if temporarily, until an acting appointee signs the Bill in question.
That will not happen in Malta. Not because Abela does not have the gumption to go through with it. I believe that if he felt it was necessary for him to resign he would do it, without hesitation. His conscience and his moral convictions come first. But, as it happens, it is not necessary. With manoeuvring by a Prime Minister who does not want to have an avoidable crisis on his hands the Bill hasn’t been finalised for presentation to the President yet.
When the internal confrontation probably arose, the President was only a few weeks away from completing his term. Now there are only a few days to go. The issue has been solved by the bell. The Bill will be placed for the new President to sign. She has already indicated that she is ready to do that.
Nevertheless, it is likely that the presidency of Abela will be marked and mostly remembered in time by this constitutional glitch. What might have been – a President following his conscience against a Bill which the whole House of Representatives and the rest of political establishment agreed with and approved. That would have been beside the case as it would have been beside the point that the essence of the Bill was part of the governing party’s electoral programme.
Happily, that will not be put to the test. Still, the twist in the tail will become the main feature of the Abela presidency. That will be a pity. It has been a good presidency. We have been blessed with a string of presidents who all rose above themselves and their past, who performed their tasks, ceremonial or not, with commitment and example. Abela added a new dimension, one of outgoing goodness and contagious good cheer, of constant endeavour for those who need our assistance. One of light and hope.
That is what he should be remembered for. The Civil Unions Bill and the quasi-issue it raised have to be recorded. But only as a small part of the tale. More so as an example when conscience speaks out.