Skills in political oratory can carry an aspiring politician far in his career and can indeed win him a seat in Parliament, but it is generally honesty that most people look for first.
Of course, one can take a cynical view of the question, arguing, for instance, whether there can be such a thing as a good politician. Some may consider the phrase to be an oxymoron that tickles the jugular vein or one that makes the blood boil.
However, as one columnist abroad put it, politicians should not necessarily evoke these kind of strong emotions. “There exist good politicians who are visionaries, nation builders and statesmen who have left behind extraordinary legacy. The only hitch is that we have so few of them.”
Malta, like other countries, has had its fair share of good and bad politicians – those who have made a difference to the island’s constitutional and social development and others who epitomised the worst possible traits.
Once every five years, the people have a chance to elect their representatives in Parliament. Common sense dictates they ought to choose their representatives on the basis of personal qualities and the contribution they are likely to make to the community. However, it does not always work like that as self-interest, the expectation of favours or blind political passion may lead voters to make the wrong choice.
It is not rare for parliamentarians to disappoint the constituents that elected them. In the last legislature, there were a few instances when self-interest led some parliamentarians to take what seemed to most to be unreasonable stances.
Such self-interest often showed lack of political acumen and team spirit, overshadowing any good work that the parliamentarians in question may have done in the interest of their party and country. Those who choose to upset the applecart for their party simply because they fail to reach their personal ambitions are examples of what makes for a bad politician.
The debates held over the election campaign so far may have enabled voters to see for themselves who could possibly contribute most to the people’s wellbeing generally and to their constituents. There is no foolproof method of selecting the right representatives, but through their participation in political conferences and debates politicians often give good indications of their character, though appearance may also be deceiving.
A politician’s worth is shown in Parliament where he is expected to contribute his share to the debates in the formulation of the country’s laws. That is why they are called lawmakers. They also have to be well prepared to take part in committees of the house.
Parliament is not the place where one clocks in and then leaves within a few minutes, which is why the Labour Party is proposing to tie the politicians’ honoraria to attendance. The usefulness of the proposal may be debatable, but the spirit behind it is understandable.
When making the proposal, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said exceptions would be made when MPs were sick, abroad on official duties or had a valid reason.
PN leader Lawrence Gonzi thought the proposal deserved to be discussed but felt there were more pressing matters to tackle first. There may very well be, such as seeing to the introduction of a law regulating party financing.
But what the people want to see first is a meaningful upgrading of the way politicians do politics – in deeds, not words.