The country is certainly not on the verge of a civil war. Neither is it being denied the government the majority of people voted for. However, the two main political parties would do well to actively consider launching their own version of the party talks of the early 1980s.

Those delicate meetings, which were usually held on Saturdays, hence dubbed Sibtjiet Flimkien by the late Guido de Marco after a popular TV programme, involved senior members of both parties with a lot of grey matter and who could be conciliatory.

In his autobiography The Politics of Persuasion, de Marco recalls: “The atmosphere was cordial and conducive to reaching agreement. We made it a point of proposing solutions without being either too aggressive or too demanding…”

The Labour Party in power and the Nationalist Party were poles apart, the PN being unable to govern, despite having won the majority of popular votes, since the constitution at the time laid down that the party with the majority of seats in parliament has the right to form a government.

But there was a will and a way was found.

The same cannot be said about the prevailing political situation. When, just days ago, the prime minister accused his political opponent in parliament of reneging on an agreement over the appointment of a new commissioner for standards in public life, Bernard Grech accused Robert Abela of being “a liar”.

It seems this saga has now ended up in a tit for tat. If the opposition disagrees with the government’s nominee for standards commissioner then a new ombudsman would not be sworn in, even if the government publicly accepted the opposition’s nominee.

The prime minister’s answer was to amend the law so a standards commissioner can be appointed without the need of a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Such an attitude cannot make the life of the nominees any easier. It may even discourage competent persons from coming froward. It certainly cannot be good for the country.

There will be other times when both sides need to agree on nominees to occupy high office, including that of president of the republic. And the issue of nominations is just the tip of the iceberg in the icy waters of Maltese politics.

In his resignation speech in parliament 19 years ago, then outgoing prime minister Eddie Fenech Adami said there were a number of areas where greater unity needed to be instilled, without destroying diversity of opinion.

It is in such a spirit that the two current political leaders and their parties should operate, before things get out of hand and their relations break down even further, with more serious repercussions for the country.

Both political parties have their own internal problems to deal with – the PN, as argued here on Sunday, is badly in need of a clear identity – but they must put the good of the country first. Malta cannot afford to go through the ugly experiences of the 1980s again.

Given the frosty relations between them, it is unlikely either of the two leaders will extend a hand of friendship, though nothing stops them from doing so.

One way forward would be to find a mediator acceptable to both, even from the ranks of the parties themselves.

The parties must stop themselves drifting even further apart. What is needed urgently for the country is to build bridges, not burn them.

That next step would be a confidence-building effort, to find areas on which the two parties agree and can take unified action.

It’s what the people would want.