Only a few days after The Times strongly criticised the government for a string of shortcomings, going so far as saying that the electorate is not satisfied at the way it is running the country, it turned its attention to the Labour Party and hit out at it over the impression it repeatedly gave in the European Parliament election campaign that it had a solution to the problem of the water and electricity tariffs. It followed the argument by holding it was time to call Labour's bluff over this, naturally expecting Labour to spell out its solution. This stand scandalised l-orizzont, the pro-Labour daily owned by the General Workers' Union, and some columnists who believe it is not the opposition's duty to do so, especially when the general election is still so far away.
The GWU newspaper found it strange that The Times was expecting solutions from Labour instead of pointing its finger at those who had caused the problem in the first place. The Times has criticised the government a number of times for the way it handled the issue over the energy tariffs but this is not the cardinal point of the argument it made. The point was that, contrary to the impression that Labour gave in the Euro-Parliament election campaign, there was no easy solution to the problem and that if there is, Labour ought to have spelled it out.
The Times did point an accusing finger at the Nationalist government in past editorials but what is strange is not that its critics have not noticed this but that, in so enthusiastically coming out in defence of Labour, they were not even aware that their defence runs against the spirit of what the party leader has been preaching in his new style of doing politics in the ambit of the new "progressive" movement he is so eagerly promoting. On the basis of what he has been reported to have said only recently, Joseph Muscat seems to be more aware of the proper role of the opposition party in today's democracy than his own defenders!
Speaking at a meeting with Labour MEPs, Dr Muscat was reported saying that, in the national interest, the party was prepared to work to bring about a leap in the quality of life for Maltese and Gozitan families. They were prepared to extend their hand, beyond the political confines, and work for the good of the country. The aim was not just to win the votes; their project extended beyond this point. They were, in fact, prepared to offer solutions to all the problems the country was facing. If Dr Muscat means what he says, then this is exactly what all the uncommitted voters had been expecting to see happening in the country: an opposition that does not stand on the sidelines all the time but is also prepared to contribute to improvement in the life of the people and the development of the country through ideas and proposals.
Yes, it is the opposition's duty to keep the government on its toes all the time through its criticism but its credibility is primarily built on its ability to propose sound alternative solutions to problems, not on meaningless sound-bites or obstructionist postures. In other words, it has to be seen as an alternative government all the time not, as one columnist seemed to suggest, when elections approach. Dr Muscat seems to be thinking on these lines too, or are we misreading his intentions?