The MLP has filed an objection to Arnold Cassola's registration as a voter. It can also result in his elimination as a possible candidate.
The law is designed to favour the franchise and voters are only removed if an objection is filed and upheld by the courts. It therefore relies on the discretion of objectors not to abuse what is necessarily an arbitrary time limit to determine a citizen's interest in the outcome of an election.
Some would consider this as a clear abuse of the legal provisions: a legal but morally illegitimate action.
Sincerity and truth do not necessarily go hand in hand. One can be sincere but not truthful. And one can speak softly the truth but is not sincere at all.
Politics, presumably the noble art of service, has a tendency to produce biased propagandists, spin doctors, who are neither sincere nor truthful. Defenders of truth, especially during an electoral campaign, do tend to defend their truth eschewing facts that do not tally with one's own political agenda.
Dr Cassola has proved his mettle. He achieved what many of us aspire. He is giving his contribution to the amelioration not only of Maltese society but on an international level.
He is up to date on local affairs much more than the average Maltese who live here. Because of his commitment in the international field, he is in a position to see the wider picture and succeed to go beyond the Maltese belfry.
I have met him and saw him in action. He deserves our respect and our appreciation. His right to vote would maintain a sense of fairness to rivals which may go a considerable way to repairing the wounds of polarisation.
His hard work abroad brought him in conflict with the Maltese constitution and our electoral laws.
He publicly - on a local television station - declared that he is not entitled to vote, unless one wants to defy our laws.
Obviously, there are good grounds for both our constitutional and electoral provisions. Such regulations are found in all civilised countries. Their aim is to safeguard the common good. It is therefore a question of changing the law, if necessary, not defying it.
It is equal to using two weights and two measures, therefore, to be scandalised by the rigid application of the law and at the same time not decrying the persecution of 800 people considered as insane just because they are over 80... and happen to belong to an opposition party!
Is not the law blind? Are not all citizens equal before the law? Are there people who are more equal than others even when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution and the electoral laws?
I believe the law is unfair. It should be changed.
But I find it difficult to take lessons in democracy from those who speak only when their political agenda is snuffed out.