Asking whether Malta can realistically afford a general election as a reaction to the current political crisis caused by Franco Debono’s intransigence is the most ridiculous question one can make.

The national interest is the quick end to the political uncertainty- Michael Falzon

The Constitution calls for a general election every five years and one can actually be called before the five-year term is over; whenever the Prime Minister – forced by circumstances or otherwise – advises the President to call one.

Whether the country can ‘realistically afford’ an election is irrelevant, and in the current crisis it is a short-sighted political ploy.

Can anyone assume that in a year’s time, the international economic situation would have improved and the country will be in a better economic position? What if it will be in a worse one?

Will anybody have the right to say the country cannot ‘realistically afford’ an election and hence ignore the Constitution? This is dangerous reasoning that could lead to the most undemocratic situations.

Another feeble ploy is ‘the national interest’ excuse. We are told that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are following a line of action that is in ‘the national interest’.

It seems political party leaders tend to confuse the interest of their party with the interest of the country. It is true that there could be circumstances where the national interest coincides with the interest of the party in government but it is patently obvious that this can never always be so.

At the moment, the national interest is the quick end to the political uncertainty and resultant instability that Franco Debono’s ill-advised rash actions have elicited.

Prolonging the uncertainty is not in the national interest for reasons that are obvious to anybody who has even a very simplistic idea of how the economy works. Uncertainty cannot but shy away investors and dampen business and it can even lead to a recession that this country cannot really ‘realistically afford’.

What is happening is not exactly in the national interest. The two parties are playing a cynical game, with the PN seeking to buy time because it is absolutely unprepared for an election in two months’ time.

I am not convinced that Labour is more prepared, and its part in the plot seems to be to let the party in government take the blame for the delay… while in actual fact it also suits Labour to take more time to switch gear into election mood.

Talk of two months of discussions on the motion of non-confidence proposed by the opposition has been mercifully shelved, and a more sensible timetable has been drawn up.

Even so, the delaying tactics on the part of the government side have not put to rest the suspicion that Labour does not really want a solution to the problem as quickly as it is making out. Trading insults does not help, either!

This is where the President should take a more active role, perhaps taking a leaf from the Italian President’s role in changing the government of his country from that made up by the Berlusconi coalition (that had obtained a majority of votes at the last election) to a technocratic one.

Of course, in Malta the Constitution does not allow for a technocrat Prime Minister and Cabinet members and the President’s role need not be so drastic.

Perhaps the President should invite the Prime Minster and the Leader of the Opposition to an informal chat over tea and should then nudge them into agreeing on an indicative election date as well as a programme of legislation that is in the country’s interest to be approved before the election is held.

This would bring an end to the current chess game going on with both parties jockeying to be in a better position before the election is called, while trying to sell the public the notion that what they are doing is all in the national interest.

If this happens, both parties would have shown the sort of political maturity this country sorely needs.

Correction

Following my contribution two weeks ago on the recent changes in the electoral boundaries, a friend pointed out to me that I had ignored the amendments to the Constitution that were approved together with the amendment ensuring that Gozo remains one electoral district on its own.

In actual fact, these amendments ensure strict proportionality with seats in the House of Representatives to be distributed according to the proportion of first preference votes cast, and therefore the way the electoral boundaries are drawn cannot influence the way the seats are distributed in the House.

These correcting measures, however, do not apply if candidates elected in the initial voting process belong to more than two parties; in which case any ‘perverse’ result would have to stand.

There are more issues that have not been resolved, but this is hardly the time for this sort of discussion.

Apologies are due for this faux pas on my part and these apologies are being unreservedly proffered.

micfal@maltanet.net