So the Democratic Party (PD) now has a permanent executive council and a Wikipedia page that defines its ideology as centre-left liberalism. That’s roughly the same patch of the political spectrum that the two major parties claim to occupy. Some statements by the PD’s leader, Marlene Farrugia, seem to endorse the view that, at least in terms of stated major goals, there isn’t much difference between the Democrats, Labour and the Nationalists. Then what difference does the PD hope to make?

In a Facebook statement, Farrugia suggested the difference will be to deny all difference. When an early supporter, Salvu Mallia, decided to leave the Democrats for the Nationalists, Farrugia retorted:

“This is not about joining this and leaving that. This is about who we are and what we want to see our nation grow into. Salv, I am the PN. As much as I am the Laburista mill-fortizza tal-ħaddiema Żurriqija (Labourite from the stronghold of Zurrieq workers).”

She shoots her mouth off relying on her instincts

As the rest of her FB post made clear, she was defining the political parties in terms of their hardworking, law-abiding, level-headed supporters. Which political leader hoping to win support from left and right has ever said otherwise?

No difference there. Not from the PN in 2003, appealing to people of goodwill to vote for EU membership. Not from Labour in 2013, saying it was a big tent movement.

Indeed, the only difference between Joseph Muscat and Farrugia, rhetorically, is that he set up a faux movement and she has set up a real political party. And the difference between Simon Busuttil and her – Farrugia says – is that her party is not compromised by people with political baggage.

She says Busuttil might well promise to replace the Gang of Three with good governance but only the Democrats in Parliament, perhaps in a coalition government, will be guarantors that a Nationalist administration will not stray. In other words, the difference the Democrats will make is personal: they will have the guts and backbone and principles to stand up for what is right.

This is a revealing conception of democratic checks and balances. In mature democracies, the checks and balances are impersonal: legal and institutional. They do not depend on politicians who personify balance and have no baggage. Such politicians are impossible to find.

Farrugia is no exception. It’s true that she, alone of her Labour colleagues, stood up to Muscat over Panamagate. That took courage. But to play the role she says she wants to play in a future coalition government takes more than personal bravery.

It calls for circumspection, a clear-headed understanding of principles, a consistency in applying them, and being able to be on the level with the electorate. And a look at Farrugia’s record shows that her performance has been patchy with each of those virtues.

First, the flip-flops. When Farrugia is reminded that she switched political parties not once, but twice, she replies that that’s a sign of her consistency of principle. If the political party decays, she stands by her principles not the party.

But those were not the only flip-flops. She was initially against the legalisation of divorce – on the grounds that she is Catholic – then in favour because it seems some priests told her that you could be Catholic and vote for it.

What kind of lack of interest in political principles must you have not to have found out for yourself, long before, that Catholic politicians are not bound to oppose a divorce law?

What kind of centre-left liberal would be fond of the slogan, ‘Malta first and before anything else’? We know what she means – the national interest before partisan sectarianism – but what she’s actually repeating is fascist and idolatrous. It puts country before human rights.

Indeed, some of the things she’s told interviewers over the years are astounding. In 2012, she told an interviewer that she believed in distributing the common good – when the common good is, of course, an indivisible common interest.

Wanting to mention one of the things she liked about the 1970s Dom Mintoff, she spoke of the student-worker scheme – a disastrous policy that greatly restricted access to university education.

The impression one gets is of a politician with strong gut feelings that are insufficiently thought out. She shoots her mouth off relying on her instincts. That helps explain why she has sometimes rushed to take a public position – on divorce; on how she and her partner, the then health minister, were going to run the ministry together – and then had to beat a retreat.

Apart from the flip-flops, there’s the inconsistency. Today, she warns the PN that she will find it impossible to form a coalition if some people with baggage are not got rid of. In 2008, she accepted to contest the general election with Alfred Sant’s Labour – when almost the entire frontbench had, shall we say, some excess baggage. No fastidiousness then.

She says that, prior to 2004, she stayed clear of Labour because of the EU issue. But, in 2009, she publicly endorsed Sharon Ellul Bonici for the MEP elections – perhaps the one Labour candidate who could unequivocally be described as a Europhobe.

The video is still up on Youtube. Watch Farrugia endorse Ellul Bonici as someone who would work for socialism in Europe – when Ellul Bonici’s credentials were being called into question by some members of the Party of European Socialists.

In that election, Ellul Bonici was endorsed and supported by the main bird hunters’ federation. But Farrugia says she has the environment close to her heart. Surely we’re owed an explanation.

Another explanation we’re owed concerns the background to Labour’s energy policy today. Farrugia mentions the mendacity about the power station as one of the things she was hoodwinked over, and why she feels she needs to make amends for her part in bringing Labour to power.

This is refreshing candour but is it the whole story?

Farrugia was the Labour Opposition’s lead speaker on utilities from 2008 through the entire legislature. Konrad Mizzi only popped up during the election campaign. During that legislature, it was Farrugia who assured the public – fluently and with conviction – that Labour had a great plan for reducing tariffs, the details of which would be revealed at the right moment.

Whatever happened to that plan? Why, in her current criticism, has she never alluded to the energy plan that she argued in favour of? Was it different from the notorious power station deal?

The issue is this. If Farrugia spoke warmly of a plan she had no actual knowledge of, then she was irresponsible and deceptive. If the plan was the same one as the current deal, why is she speaking up against it now?

She can’t behave as a politician who is on the level with people if she doesn’t clear that puzzle up.

I’m not alleging dishonesty. I suspect thoughtlessness, impetuosity and run-of-the-mill political calculation. It’s nothing that dozens of our other MPs, on both sides of the divide, have not been guilty of.

But if you’re making an issue of your judgement, your grasp of principle, and your ability to transcend partisanship – your reliability in getting it right at critical moments – then it’s not good enough to be just another hack.

Of course, as she says the Democrat Party isn’t just her. From the looks of it, it’s just as well.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.