It could have been an honourable exercise but the latest altercation between the government and the opposition in the country’s highest institution sadly turned out to be a mere goal-scoring attempt.
Seeking an urgent meeting with the Speaker so the Nationalist parliamentary group can put all cards on the table and chart a way forward would be commendable.
The government would also have deserved praise for seeking the opposition leader’s cooperation and, hopefully, work together to ensure parliament gets the respect it deserves.
However, we have been faced with another classical case of ‘honourable’ pots calling ‘honourable’ kettles black.
What gave rise to this latest extravaganza of political hypocrisy was a rowdy exchange in parliament between the Speaker, Anġlu Farrugia, and Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina, branded as an ‘extremist’ by Labour.
Those with some grey matter between their ears are justified in concluding that the government reacted the way it did only to pile more pressure on the opposition leader to clip his activist MP’s wings.
Farrugia, on the other hand, has often come in the Nationalist Party’s crosshairs and, truth be told, not always for purely partisan reasons.
He has been accused of moving to avoid embarrassment for the party of which he was once the deputy leader rather than promote and safeguard the dignity of his office. So, here was another occasion for the opposition to take another shot at him.
Let a spade be called a spade.
Certain language used by Aquilina is certainly unbecoming any ‘honourable member’.
So was his declaration that the speaker would need to call the police to make him leave the chamber.
If an MP feels strongly about a decision made by the Speaker, there are set procedures to follow. In the House of Commons, on which the Maltese parliament is modelled, MPs can move a motion against the Speaker for debate, even if the fingers on one hand would be more than enough to count the instances this has happened.
On the other hand, it is pathetic for Labour to speak of respecting the country’s institutions. Most of the recent outbursts in parliament were precisely provoked by the Abela administration bending over backwards to defend wrongdoing, corruption, even, by government politicians and the hijacking of institutions.
The Speaker has a lot to answer for, of course. We have seen several examples where Farrugia prefers to embarrass himself, and demean his office and parliament as long as he does not put the government in a spot.
He must understand that his role goes beyond upholding standing orders – which he himself acknowledges need revising – and ensuring order, fairness and adherence to parliamentary procedures. Ultimately, his loyalty is towards parliament, that is, the people, not the party in power or, indeed, individual MPs.
When giving rulings, Farrugia needs to constantly bear in mind the evolving times and circumstances.
He would do well to bear in mind Lord Justice Lawton’s wise advice, addressed to the judiciary: “The courts do not have to reflect public opinion. On the other hand, they must not disregard it.”
In view of the above, the government was wrong when it decided to move a motion condemning ‘attacks’ on the Speaker and to censure Aquilina.
The people and, indeed, parliament would have been better served had the whips of both parties got together and agreed on a way forward to revise standing orders and parliamentary procedure.
That is the correct way to respect parliament and the people.