The election of a new Nationalist Party leader shifted the focus on what is often described as the worst job in politics.
The new leader needs to possess the skills to lead a political party while also being responsible for leading the Opposition. The second is the most important.
The leader of the Opposition is sometimes seen as a prime-minister-in-waiting, tasked with projecting the image of an alternative government with the hope of, eventually, achieving electoral success.
For others, he is a hate figure par excellence: the leader of the opposing tribe and an object of mockery. Alas, this is a reductionist view that does not do justice to the role of the Opposition leader.
The Constitution of Malta states that “there shall be a leader of the Opposition who shall be appointed by the President”. This office is never vacant; should the leader of the Opposition resign, another person who enjoys the parliamentary support of the Opposition will be appointed.
Thus, without a leader of the Opposition, the whole constitutional order, as established by the Westminster system of governance, is thrown into disarray.
The Constitution lays down that the Prime Minister should consult the leader of the Opposition when making key appointments, including that of Acting President. The Opposition leader also appoints a member on the Commission for the Administration of Justice and chooses the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Prime Minister is obliged to consult the leader of the Opposition when appointing members on various commissions, including the Electoral Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Broadcasting Authority and the Employment Commission.
A leader of the Opposition cannot be judged solely in terms of electoral success and the acquisition of power
Regrettably, these constitutional provisions have often been interpreted in a partisan manner rather than in the spirit envisioned in the Constitution.
However, the role of Opposition leader is far more wide-ranging.
Some Commonwealth countries speak of a “loyal opposition”. While not specified in the text of the Constitution, the Opposition in Malta is also understood to be a loyal one.
Loyalty is not synonymous with acquiescence to the will of the government of the day but is understood as a commitment to the constitutional order that establishes systems of checks and balances and mandates parliamentary scrutiny.
Loyalty can also be interpreted as loyalty to constituents. In a representative system of government, the much-vaunted “will of the people” is expressed by both the members of the governing side (regardless of whether they serve as Cabinet ministers or backbenchers) and by the members of the Opposition parties.
The Westminster model encourages a lively and heated debate. The impression that parliamentarians are engaged in a constant electoral campaign is justified. The government must not stop at proposing legislation; it must explain its choices and be held accountable. The Opposition’s role is to help in the latter task, holding the government accountable, scrutinising power and offering an alternative vision. Many are put off by the adversarial nature of the debates. Others believe such discourse may be detrimental to the national interest. Both views need to be challenged.
The combative character of parliamentary debate is healthy for the exercise of democratic governance, while the national interest should never be interpreted as the interest of the party in government.
There may be times when consensus is required, in which case, the government and the Opposition need to establish common ground. There are other occasions when both sides agree on a set course of action. In this scenario, the onus is on the Opposition to ensure all the necessary scrutiny has been exercised.
In their different roles, both the government and the Opposition are being loyal to their constitutional duties and their constituents. A leader of the Opposition cannot be judged solely in terms of electoral success and the acquisition of power. Within the Westminster system, the concept of ‘power’ is more nuanced than the linguistic term suggests. Power is not understood in absolutist terms.
Considerable powers are given to the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister. However, power is also divested to other branches of government. One such power is scrutiny: holding governing institutions accountable for both the way they exercise their powers and the content of their policy proposals. Here, the role of the Opposition leader is crucial. He must also face scrutiny by the electorate, for he is also accountable to them.
The role of the government and the Opposition are, by their very nature, antithetical. Nonetheless, there is much that binds the two. It is often acknowledged that the Cabinet formulates and implements policy on behalf of the entire nation, regardless of how people voted. It is also true the Opposition performs its function of scrutiny in the name of the entire nation.
The national interest is best served by both a stable and responsible government and a strong, active Opposition.
Much has been made of the qualities necessary to lead a political party. They range from effective communication skills to the ability to listen to different factions and the need to unite and reform.
These skills are necessary but they do not do justice to the real quality a robust and stable democracy necessitates: being capable to lead an effective Opposition.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.