Most people are not impressed when the politicians they elect to represent them in Parliament misbehave, sometimes badly, in the House. Some politicians even dare doing it to the point of earning a warning of eviction from the House. When disorder, or uproar, threatens to get out of hand, the Speaker has no alternative other than suspending the sitting, as he did three times in sessions just before the Christmas recess.
The problem is that when politicians act improperly it often seems they are doing so purposely, not just to score political points but, more so, to impress constituents. They believe that overstepping their mark is what is expected of them, otherwise they are taken for weaklings.
Live transmission of parliamentary sittings has only made the situation worse as MPs tend to play to the gallery, again to impress their constituents on whom they depend for re-election. Of course, not all do this. Some are paragons of excellent debaters – sharp but moderate in their language and composed, not given to aggressive attitudes.
These usually contrast sharply with those who act as if they are in a boxing ring. Politicians choosing to engage in harangue rather than meaningful debate fail to realise that times have changed and that, while there is still a segment that simply relish the yelling and loutish behaviour, many others believe the time for such antics is long gone.
The last election has shown how quickly a particular situation can bring about a seismic switch in the voting pattern. The lesson is that more and more people are freeing themselves of the traditional family pattern of party allegiance and are quite prepared to vote in accordance to what they think and feel is best for the country.
In other words, the number of uncommitted voters is getting increasingly larger, not smaller. This has ushered in a new important element in local politics. Just as Joseph Muscat managed to mesmerise and convince so many with his pledges in the last general election, others can do the same.
However, some politicians appear to be far too blinkered or proud to take any lessons. They stick to the traditional way of doing things, which is why they go on acting aggressively and in a manner that reduces the respect they, the political class and Parliament itself deserve. Having lively parliamentary debates is one thing but being outright rude is another.
The cut-and-thrust style of debate in the House of Commons in Britain makes debates more interesting and appealing. Frequent interruptions of approval or disapproval by members on opposite sides may make the House noisy, sometimes too noisy. But this is par for the course. It is when verbal punch-ups exceed acceptable limits and when MPs get personal or use unparliamentary language that lines are crossed.
Malta’s Parliament has passed through bad times over the years, though, in truth, they were tame compared to experiences in some other countries. Even so, when politicians preach against tribal politics, they have to mean what they say. A political party cannot just populate, to use an in-word, the public service with its own people on being elected to power and then have its leader preaching about unity, as Dr Muscat did just before Christmas.
In the light of how his government managed to turn his Malta Tagħna Lkoll (Malta for all) slogan on its head, his pledge to lead by example was hollow.
Politicians have to practise what they preach all the time, not just when it suits them.