I wish to pick apart a few arguments which have been used as part of the political discourse of the past few months, mostly in relation to the perception and expectations of what we call the Opposition.

First of all, lately there seems to be a journalistic error whereby the Nationalist Party is referred to as the Opposition. The Opposition is made up of two parties in Parliament, not one. The Democratic Party is part of the Opposition, even though it is not in a coalition any longer.

Labour propaganda has also tried to discredit the idea of there being two parties in Opposition, but one needs only go onto the website of Parliament to find that the PD’s two MPs are listed as being members of their own party, with the PD logo. This complements a ruling by the Speaker, acknowledging the independence of the Democratic Party in Parliament, and its right to speaking time.

Moving on from this point, let us consider a few other items of propaganda which have been thrown out into the open and gobbled up. The Labour Party loves talking about the need for a “strong Opposition”. It also loves to say that the Nationalist Party is too negative, and unfortunately the Nationalist Party has made the mistake of falling into this trap. They are now trying to avoid sounding too “negative”, when it is their job to be watchdogs of Government.

There is a difference between being proactive and being negative. The Opposition needs to be proactive, and propose solutions instead of just criticise. But the idea of there being a negative or positive Opposition is propaganda. The Nationalist Party has now gone out of its way to try and paint itself as being positive instead of negative, playing into the hands of the Government. Instead it should be aiming to be proactive and yes, still highly critical.

The next item on the list is to consider this idea of the need for a “strong Opposition”. What does this mean? I doubt many people can immediately give an explanation. If by what is meant is that the Government requires a vigilant watchdog, and an effective one, then yes, a “strong Opposition” is needed. It is the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to the highest possible standard. Then why is it that the Nationalist Party is trying to avoid being “negative”, if a strong Opposition is needed?

When it goes on the offensive, it tries to be apologetic for its negativity, or in the very least cannot help referencing the concept. One can immediately see that priorities have gotten mixed up, that the government’s propaganda war has become all too effective, and mixed messages are being sent by the Nationalist Party.

Instead of talking about a “strong Opposition”, we should be talking about a credible alternative government, with solutions, morals and a vision. We must therefore also do away with the idea that a “strong Opposition” means one single party making up the Opposition, without being challenged. Who watches the watchmen, as the saying goes? Should not all parties in Parliament be held to the highest possible standards by each other?

We have also seen that the two major parties pander to the same lobbies, such as the hunting lobby and the construction lobby, and that until now there has been nobody to speak up for the little man on the street. Why do we want a “strong Opposition” instead of an Opposition which is going to stand up for the rights of the people of this country?

We do not need more of the same. It can be hard to sift through propaganda, or realise the extent to which it can dictate a popular narrative. After all, even the Nationalist Party bought into this idea of being negative. Let us not make the mistake of falling into the same trap. Instead of being negative or positive, let us be clean, consistent and proactive. Let us be effective.