The Leader of the Opposition soberly reminded the electorate that Labour lost six out of the last seven elections. In fact, he obtained the desired effect by getting the solitary applause of only one Labour supporter for saying so.

The country must seriously ask itself what there is to gain from this mess- Austin Bencini

Joseph Muscat, of course, included the 1981 election among the six defeats, although Labour had won that election in seats. He rightly said that then Labour had governed even though it did not have the support of the absolute majority of the electorate.

It may be added that Labour had more than governed; it had scraped the very bottom of the barrel of power by having Parliament dissolved on the last day it was allowed to do so by the Constitution. The first sitting took place on the February 15, 1982, and Parliament was not dissolved until February 14, 1987.

Following the ‘perverse result’ of the 1981 election, Malta had vowed that never again was it to happen that the party winning the support of the majority of the voters would end up in opposition within that legislature. In fact, perverse electoral results did happen again but on each occasion the Constitution provided for the addition of seats to ensure that the party with the majority of votes did not end up as in opposition. This happened at the general elections of 1987, 1996 and 2008.

Muscat therefore is determined to govern only if he has the support of the majority of the voters behind him. This can only happen if Labour wins the next election, whenever it is to be held.

This applies to the current Prime Minister, who is governing only thanks to the Constitution adding four extra seats at the last election, giving the Nationalist Party an overall majority of one seat. Were it not for the Constitution, Labour would be governing by three seats instead.

Within this scenario, therefore, there may be only one out of two outcomes from the parliamentary debate on the motion of no-confidence presented by Muscat: either the Nationalist government will survive and an election will in any case be held within the coming year and four months, or else the government loses the vote by the absolute majority of MPs and an election will be held within the coming three to four months, depending on when Parliament is dissolved.

Is the difference so marked between either of the outcomes?

Well, yes, for those new voters who will not be allowed to vote if the election is held in the coming months since the new electoral register will come into force only after April of this year, and if the Writ is issued before then it is the current electoral register that will apply, not that of April.

The country must be seriously asking itself what there is to gain from all this mess. Here we are not in the Dom Mintoff-Alfred Sant feud, when Mintoff cut short Sant’s Premiership by nearly three full years and four months. Today’s legislature must come to an end in one year, four months.

Lawrence Gonzi’s administration is soon entering its fifth year in government. His predecessor as Prime Minister, Eddie Fenech Adami, had advised a dissolution seven months before the end of the legislature without being forced to do so by any votes of no-confidence.

How are the proponents of the no-confidence vote to explain to those denied the right to vote that the country cannot wait a few more months when the election is anyway round the corner?

The political instability is the result of Debono failing to challenge Gonzi’s leadership of the majority party.

Margaret Thatcher, during her fourth term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was ousted after losing the support of key Cabinet colleagues in the second round of a leadership election. She immediately tendered her resignation as Prime Minister to the Queen, who substituted her with the newly elected Conservative leader, John Major, without much ado, or the need for a vote of no-confidence in Parliament.

Gonzi is set to be re-confirmed as leader by all the major organs of the party. His substitution by the head of state with a member of the opposition would therefore create a perverse result, in that the party that won the last election would end up in opposition against the provisions of the majority mechanisms found in the Constitution.

In any case, it would not provide stability, as it leaves an entire nation in the stranglehold of demands of one solitary MP.

The combination of these circumstances means that the President may be very limited in the options available to him should Debono vote with the opposition.

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are to be mature enough to recognise these realities, and in the name of democracy agree on a road-map allowing the smooth running of the country for the coming months, with an election being held soon after the new electoral register is in place.

And what of Dr. Debono? Well, wouldn’t that become an academic question?