Back-benchers

In the past week I met a number of people who asked me about the state of play in the Nationalist Party, particularly within the Nationalist parliamentary group. Many of those who spoke to me became genuinely concerned after reading or hearing stories of ‘rifts' within the group and about a ‘brewing revolt' by back-benchers. In a country were sensational stories are hard to come by, media jump on golden opportunities to secure a scoop.

Let me be blunt about it. Whereas I truly believe in an open party, where members are not gagged and are not expected to be like puppets-on-a-string, I firmly believe in a sense of collegiality within any group let alone a major political party.

Of course, the Labour Party tries to make a meal of anything that makes the Party in government looks bad. Such information, even if untrue, helps cover its own troubles.

The current gossip on what is supposed to be going on within the Nationalist group helped dilute the ousting of Jason Micallef from the PL Hamrun HQ and his nomination to a weaker position within Labour media. Those who think that this was just a mutual agreement between friends is wrong. This was the result of a war between factions which are constantly changing.

Jason even claimed that the acting Secretary General had 'lied' when stating that he had decided not to contest the post he is temporarily filling out of his own will. It seems that Jason had made this a condition to Joseph Muscat! Perhaps one day we will learn more about the manoeuvring that took place in Labour's red palace to get rid of Jason.

But let's get back to the Nationalist front. I cannot hide the obvious. There are some back-benchers who are publicly expressing themselves against a number of government initiatives, about the role of back-benchers and about the general political situation. This state-of-affairs in the partly is widely attributed to the vast changes in the cabinet line-up affected by the Prime Minister following the Party's narrow victory in the last general election.

But what was the Prime Minister supposed to do? Retain the same line up of ministers, ignoring the message sent out by the electorate and the requirements of a brand new legislature? At the same time one should not get the impression that all those who were not re-appointed or those who were left out of the cabinet line-up are up in arms against the Prime Minister. Most of the have taken their new status in their stride. Some of them are actively chairing parliamentary committees and delegations. All members of the group give their valid contributions in internal discussions on a number of issues.

Should the government back-benchers have a bigger say in the decisions taken by government? In a way, yes. I am sure that the Government and hence the country, stand to benefit from the opinions of critical friends who also happen to be the people's representatives. However, sometimes certain decisions would need to be taken within a small circle of people. And it's up to the Prime Minister to decide on such instances. It has nothing to do with democracy within a political group. It is directly related to strategy and the national interest. In the few instances where such a situation occurred, one could immediately sense that the national interest was chosen over any other interest.

Life as a back-bencher can be rather frustrating particularly if your party is in government. You are constantly bombarded by constituents who expect you to be on the ball on whatever your government is doing. Most of the time one would be able to somehow answer their questions. However, sometimes this is not the case.

Moreover, very often back-benchers feel that they can contribute more to the work of their government. Since back-benchers come from different backgrounds - management, media, health, law, civil service and so one - we can definitely make valid input by sharing opinions, ideas and constructive criticism.

In parliament, we are also expected to actively participate in debates, raising points which may contribute to better legislation, doing our utmost to contribute as much as possible despite the limited support available to those who are just members of parliament.

But ultimately, a back-bencher is a back-bencher. Even if a member of parliament's contribution remains limited to that role, the electorate will judge him or her on that the next time the country goes to the polls.

charlo.bonnici@gov.mt