Three elections ago, then Labour Party leader Joseph Muscat made two solemn pledges to the electorate. Labour, he promised, would do things better than the outgoing Nationalist administration and a new style of doing politics would be ushered in.
Assessing whether Labour did better than the PN would depend on which side of the fence you sit and on what one understands by doing things better and at what price.
A new style of politics was introduced – the sort that allowed the state to be plundered, the rule of law to practically collapse, good governance to go to the dogs and impunity to facilitate the murder of a journalist.
Accountability and transparency disappeared from Muscat’s dictionary. Greedy businessmen, aided and abetted by top government functionaries, were the big beneficiaries.
While Muscat has much to answer for, the finger of blame should also be pointed at the institutions and their weak-kneed heads. Foremost among them is parliament, which continues to fail abysmally in holding the government to account.
The weak PN opposition falls well short of keeping the government on its toes at all times. And Labour backbenchers don’t seem to think it is among their duties to keep the government in check on behalf of their constituents.
Instead, they are effectively bribed with handsomely-paid, government-appointed positions.
The supposed cornerstone of a thriving democracy has ended up toothless and hardly more than a rubber stamp of the government’s plans. It is against this background that one needs to look at the opening of the ‘new’ parliament on May 7. The signs are ominous.
The constitution demands that parliament meets not later than two months after the publication of the official result of the general election. That result was published two days after the March 26 election, although a few more days passed before more MPs were added in line with mechanisms meant to ensure proportional representation and gender parity.
While it is not a matter of great import, it is curious that the prime minister decided to wait for as long as May 7 to reconvene parliament.
What is more worrying is Robert Abela’s inexplicable decision to retain Anġlu Farrugia as speaker.
Farrugia was made speaker by Muscat, evidently to buy his silence after the damning public declarations he had made about the businessmen visiting the infamous fourth floor of Labour’s headquarters.
Abela defended his decision, saying Farrugia implemented important reforms over the last nine years, including administrative autonomy for parliament.
The record also shows that Farrugia bent over backwards to accommodate the government, even spending taxpayers’ money to hire legal advice that supported his often warped rulings. Maintaining and enhancing the dignity of the office of the speaker did not feature on Farrugia’s list of priorities and duties.
When, on May 7, the president addresses parliament’s new faces – and the many ‘old’ ones who have not lived up to their duty of scrutinising the government’s work and behaviour – let’s see whether he raises any of these issues. Abela’s own ‘body language’ so far indicates that parliament’s poor performance is likely to carry on into the next five years of this administration.
If the opposition truly wants to make itself relevant, it should waste no time in pushing for a national movement – rather than some PN committee – that would put pressure on the government to implement much-needed reforms of parliament.
Civil society and the independent media will no doubt support an attempt to have the house live up to its crucial democratic function.