A proposal for former MPs to retain the title of ‘honourable’ to their names has been turned down by Parliament’s House Business Committee, a move that makes sense in view of the declining trust that is being demonstrated in politicians generally.
What is particularly striking, however, is that the Association of Former MPs should make such a proposal in the first place. It projects its members as having already distanced themselves from the people who, doubtlessly, are, in their majority, against such fanciful matters as titles. They seem to be blissfully unaware that politicians, or, at least, many of them, are not held in the same high regard today as they used to be in the past.
So, if anything, the proposal made was ill-timed. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for Malta, they have been put in their place by the House Business Committee.
Apart from other considerations, the request also highlights Malta’s obsession with titles, something that all too often borders on the hilarious.
In a way, this is also sad as it shows that some people are more interested in their ego than the service they are meant to give to the community.
The request, unfortunately, has also wasted the time of the Office of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the House Business Committee.
The Speaker presented the committee with research on the situation abroad and Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco said it was clear that, in most cases abroad, the title was not retained after members left the House. He saw no reason for Malta to go against the trend.
His view is shared by most people and it is not surprising the government agreed with this stand either because, had it done otherwise, its acceptance would have gone against the grain of the national sentiment.
When the matter was first raised, one Labour MP was reported saying the retention of the title would not do any harm and it would give some importance to whoever had served the country. That, the MP felt, was a good thing.
But why should former MPs be made to feel all that important for having served their country?
Is not the act of serving the country in itself satisfaction enough?
Those that consider their service in politics as a vocation would never dream of hankering after titles.
In fact, there would seem to be a great misconception about the work that MPs do once they are elected.
Four years ago, The Daily Telegraph ran a landmark editorial in the wake of the scandalous expenses claims made by several MPs that had shocked the country. Reflecting the sense of outrage felt across Britain, the newspaper titled the leader ‘MPs are there to serve, not to be self-serving’.
The most important part of the leader ran as follows:
“Politicians are not doing us an honour by sitting on the green benches; we are doing them an honour by investing in them the power to make decisions about our daily lives as our elected representatives. Too few appear to grasp this point. When they look in the mirror... they see someone whose calling is so exalted that their silliest whim should be indulged. Admittedly, there have always been vain and self-indulgent MPs. But how have voters of every political allegiance managed to elect so many of them in recent years?”
The text should be reproduced, framed and put in the chamber of the new Parliament as the hunt should be for trust, not titles.