Few people would have expected a debate between the parties’ two deputy leaders to have become such a talking point, especially when such encounters are normally dour occasions which are instantly forgotten whether or not there is any Christmas cheer around.
We have commented on the Labour Party’s decision to create a debacle last Friday when it acceded to Franco Debono’s request to go on the Xarabank programme. The party seems to have realised it was a mistake, especially after agreeing to send Anġlu Farrugia the following day with the same presenter. If only it had had the presence of mind to do that 24 hours earlier.
Why it went down this route perhaps only it can answer, but there is no doubt that it seemed it was not enthralled by the prospect of its deputy leader facing Simon Busuttil.
And if it had any fears about such an encounter, these were certainly borne out during the programme. While Dr Busuttil was considered and articulate throughout – perhaps seeming to be enjoying the show at little too much at times – Dr Farrugia was not. The PL deputy leader was clearly not in his element and it showed rather painfully on several occasions during the course of the debate.
This has led to the accusation that PBS, which is supposed to be an impartial State broadcaster, knew it would turn out like this all along – which is why they conceived such a programme in the first place. Given there has not been such an encounter between the party deputy leaders in living memory, such an argument may gain some credence.
But even if that is explained away in the name of moving with the political times and progress – after all, the US hosts a debate between the candidates for Vice President – the decision by the State broadcaster to repeat the programme on several occasions, in particular on prime time Monday night, is a regressive step.
For even if the intention was not to try and show up Dr Farrugia for a stuttering performance, the perception is inescapable that that was precisely the aim. PBS should have been far more sensitive to this.
Yet in all the hullabaloo about the televised debate, a far more important point which did not even form part of it has been lost: which is Dr Farrugia’s accusation that Magistrate Audrey Demicoli displayed political bias when she acquitted a man of vote rigging in the March 2008 election.
Such an unsubstantiated statement made by the deputy leader of a political party, who may be Deputy Prime Minister next year, is utterly unacceptable, especially as he made no quick move to either prove or retract it.
Although caught between a rock and a hard place, Joseph Muscat’s reaction to his deputy leader’s comments have been weak.
When asked by The Times how he reconciled Dr Farrugia’s allegations with his own previous calls for cool heads when it came to the judiciary, Dr Muscat said: “We should be very careful what we say about members of the judiciary and ensure their serenity.”
Dr Farrugia’s comments do not just affect serenity. They undermine the credibility of the judiciary. And this at a time when public confidence has been shaken due to bribery allegations against one judge, while another faces impeachment proceedings.
Someone in Dr Farrugia’s position is well aware of this. And if he is not, he should not occupy that position.