The uncertainty within the majority party in the House of Representatives on the vote of no confidence concerning Minister Austin Gatt raises a number of constitutional issues that need to be appreciated by all in the light of the international scenario of grave financial turmoil, not to say chaos.

In dispute is not the government’s economic or financial handling of the euro crisis, in that Malta is not considered as having the same problems as Greece and potentially even of Italy. At issue is the handling of the public transport system and on who, at government level, is to bear responsibility for failures connected with it and which have caused serious inconveniences to the public at large.

At first sight it would be clear that tomorrow’s opposition’s motion of no confidence before Parliament is on the ministerial performance of one single minister. In constitutional terms this makes of the motion one of individual ministerial responsibility, which, if carried, would entail the obligation on the part of Dr Gatt to call it a day without any consequences on the government.

The Constitution, however, envisages a second type of ministerial responsibility, that of a collective nature such that, if the motion is carried, it would involve the obligation on the entire government to offer its resignation to the Head of State and would, of course, throw Malta into political and economic uncertainty when perhaps is least indicated in the national interest for this to happen.

Article 79(2) of the Constitution states that the Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the government and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament. This, in turn, puts the spotlight firmly on the Prime Minister on whom rests the decision of whether to transform the issue from one of individual responsibility involving Dr Gatt only or whether to put the continuation of this Administration at stake by stating in Parliament that the entire Cabinet would stand by the minister with the consequence that if Dr Gatt falls so would the entire Cabinet.

There needs clarity at the institutional level to avoid the months of uncertainty that had gripped the country during the political confrontation of 1998 between Alfred Sant, then Prime Minster, and the historic leader of the Labour movement, Dom Mintoff, at the time a backbencher. It is today history that, following weeks, which had turned into months, of the Labour government facing uncertainty on how Mr Mintoff would vote in Parliament, Dr Sant decided to put before Parliament an issue he declared to be a matter of confidence in the government, namely the Cottonera project.

Mr Mintoff duly obliged by voting against the project throwing the Sant government into weeks of turmoil until the Prime Minister came to the inevitable conclusion that his government was too weak to continue in office and decided to advise the President to dissolve Parliament with catastrophic consequences to the Labour Party of not only losing the 1998 election but also those of 2003 and 2008.

Nor may the country forget the months of institutional controversy on whether the declaration of the Cottonera project as a question of confidence had or not amounted to a formal vote of no confidence activating constitutional mechanisms leading to elections.

Today, it would seem, since in politics nothing is what it seems to be, that there is one Nationalist member of Parliament who is seriously considering not to support Dr Gatt. In this situation, therefore, it is fundamental for the political, institutional and even financial stability of the country that the consequences of any decision on the part of the Prime Minister, to transform an issue of individual ministerial responsibility into one of collective responsibility, to be spelt out clearly in Parliament before anything else is debated or voted on.

It is equally the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to assess the extent to which the opposition is prepared to go on the matter and whether now would be in the national interest for Malta to go to the polls. Equally, it is for Dr Gatt to gauge the extent of support he enjoys within his own parliamentary group.

The country needs clarity and certainty in this time of uncertainty just as much as individual ministers and the Cabinet are to be accountable to Parliament.