There is much more to the Carm Mifsud Bonnici affair than meets the eye. Several factors do meet the eye correctly. The main one is the dignity of the man himself. He maintained it throughout the operational onslaught that took place over the opposition’s no-confidence motion in him. He was not cowed. He stood tall. He maintained that he had done his best, which was true as ministers go.

Labour read Franco Debono’s clear aversion to Mifsud Bonnici as a political gift it would be foolish not to exploit. But taking the opportunity turned out to be as foolish as can be- Lino Spiteri

It is also true there were failings in the departments under his ministerial jurisdiction. Failures that warranted criticism of the sort the opposition makes, and had made, during the budgetary discussion of the votes for which a minister is responsible. And also of speeches on the adjournment motion or on specific Bills piloted by the minister.

Yet another factor which met the eye correctly was that the Labour opposition wanted much more than that. It wanted to embarrass the government, in the same manner that the Nationalist opposition had bent over backwards to embarrass Alfred Sant’s government in 1998 by giving a rampant Dom Mintoff every assistance to do so directly,TV coverage, parliamentary time and all.

The opposition read Franco Debono’s clear aversion to Mifsud Bonnici as a political gift it would be foolish not to exploit. In fact, that’s what it turned out to be by taking the opportunity – as foolish as can be. Even if one could argue that the Nationalists’ cynical behaviour in 1998 warranted it, there is such a thing as ethics.

The Nationalists were canny in 1998, but as unethical as could be. Labour could and should have used that backcloth to show they could compete positively, be ethical and not play the Nationalists’ game. Whether unanimously or otherwise they decided not to do so, to be unethical too and glaringly opportunistic.

The price for that will be paid not in the currency of ethics, but in the return to the Nationalist fold of disgruntled grassroots members, and of the bad impression on swathes of the uncommitted, many not old enough to remember the nuances of 1998 in detail.

That is a capricious cost to Labour. The unethical side as it equates to similar Nationalist bad practice in 1998 speaks volumes of the depths to which many politicians can stoop.

I suggest they read Beyond Religion, a brilliant book by the Dalai Lama about how to live ethically. He steers clear of politics but reminds readers of what not to do as much as how to behave. God knows some politicians, current and past like me, need to be reminded of that.

Another factor that meets the eye is that Debono was after Mifsud Bonnici as a minister, to lever him out. If not, he would and should have attacked the heads of department in his extensive portfolio, as Labour too ought to have done but, to a man and woman, refrained from doing so in further example of cynicism.

What does not really meet the eye is the way Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and his team used and abused their mild-mannered colleague, Mifsud Bonnici. They lauded his qualities to the point of embarrassing him.They trumpeted treachery at Debono. They yelled with fury at Labour’s opportunism.

What they did not do was to advise and manage Mifsud Bonnici in his best interests. The Prime Minister had told his Cabinet and other inner circle that he would not allow Mifsud Bonnici to become a sacrificial lamb. Instead they made him a sacrificial lamb to Nationalist interests, which were and remain to show the Labour opposition in as bad a light as could be, and to rally as much support as possible to a weary Nationalist government in clear distress.

How they did that appears evident at second, deeper glance. The game for survival turned on what Debono would do on the Labour motion.

Would he again huff and puff but not bring the house down by merely abstaining, or would he go the whole hog? Debono for once gave a clear reply to that when he voted in favour of the opposition’s move to change their motion from one of censor to one of confidence.

At that stage the Prime Minister should have advised Mifsud Bonnici to resign, rather than suffering the ignominy of a motion of no confidence in him being passed. Lawrence Gonzi, with cynical calculation, did not do so. It suited the Nationalist efforts to grab back electoral support for voting on the no-confidence motion to take place, even though it was then certain that it would pass.

Is that too harsh a reading? Hardly. Consider what the Prime Minister could have done next and manifestly failed to do. Had he really not wanted Mifsud Bonnici to become a sacrificial lamb, he could immediately have made a mini reshuffle and appointed him to another ministry.

He would not have been defying or insulting House procedure for doing that. The opposition, at least, had made it clear – as had Debono – that the motion was operational, not personal.

In fact not a single opposition speaker had attacked or criticised the former minister personally, cynical though they were collectively in political terms.

But a reinstated Mifsud Bonnici, while showing the Prime Minister had oomph and still held the reins in his hands, would not have suited the Nationalist electoral objective as much as a profusely bleeding Mifsud Bonnici.

They say politics is the art of the possible. It was possible for Gonzi to reward Mifsud Bonnici for his dignity and still show up Labour as being opportunistic.

He declined to do so. He was, in turn, being as opportunistic as could be, in the process knifing him with cynicism to the hilt.

Politics, as defined in Malta, 2012.