We’re told that, in June’s European elections, Maltese patriotism is in the balance. But there’s patriotism and there’s patriotism. Robert Abela’s is not Chris Fearne’s.

On Tuesday, we shall see a former prime minister, Joseph Muscat, summoned to answer corruption charges in court. The following day, it will be the turn of Fearne, a former deputy prime minister, and Edward Scicluna, the Central Bank governor.

Abela treats patriotism as though it’s an extension of his ego. His patriotism demands selflessness – yours – in defence of his personal interests.

If that means damaging the country’s institutions, bruising its international reputation and putting our trust-based economic services at risk, so be it. Abela is prepared to torch the independence of the judiciary, and Malta’s constitutional order, for the sake of his personal political survival.

Fearne’s patriotism is something else. He spelled it out in his resignation letter. He insists on his innocence; he’s convinced the courts will clear him. But he resigned his government positions anyway.

Fearne is clear. He was not resigning on the basis of some idiosyncratic, super-strict credo. He resigned, he said, because it is ‘the right thing to do’.

Fearne insists that, in spite of his innocence, resignation is demanded. Basic political decency leaves no other option.

Resignation, Fearne writes, is required by a fourfold loyalty. First, there’s loyalty to himself and the values his parents taught him. Second, there’s loyalty to the institutions, including – mark this – the European institutions. Third, there’s loyalty to the oath of office. Fourth – mark this too – there is loyalty to the Labour Party, which he loves.

In the passage just paraphrased, Fearne describes what he’s doing in terms of duty. Elsewhere, he frames resignation as patriotic. He says he’s resigning because he puts Malta, the constitution and his Maltese brethren first.

You don’t have to be a codebreaker to read between these lines. If respect for the institutions and Malta’s European identity calls for resignation, then non-resignation displays disrespect.

If resignation is required out of loyalty to the constitution and office, then non-resignation displays disloyalty.

And if resignation arises out of the need to put love of country and Labour first, then non-resignation displays selfishness. For Fearne, non-resignation isn’t even putting party before country. By not resigning, one hurts Labour too.

Does anyone seriously doubt that Fearne articulated the commonly held understanding, in Europe, of what’s required in the circumstances? Given that, Fearne leaves us in no doubt about what he thinks of someone like Scicluna, who is refusing to resign.

By not resigning, Scicluna is raising all kinds of questions- Ranier Fsadni

The Central Bank governor’s current legal and political position is analogous to Fearne’s. Scicluna and Abela should be asked why Fearne’s principles don’t apply to the governor.

Abela defends Scicluna by saying there’s the presumption of innocence. But Fearne has shown us that presumption is irrelevant.

Fearne resigned while declaring, not merely presuming, his own innocence. But, he added, too much institutional harm would be done if he waited for the court to clear him.

Fearne resigned because not to do so would hurt everything mature patriotism holds dear. While Abela waffles about resignation being “premature”, Fearne insists there’s no time to lose.

Abela says that Scicluna has his trust. But who today would rely on Abela’s judgement?

He stood firm by Rosianne Cutajar – until he didn’t. When the parliamentary standards commissioner asked him to apologise for illegitimate advertising, Abela blamed – wait for it – his persons of trust. When Abela says he trusts or stands by someone, it means zilch.

Even if it does mean something, it’s irrelevant. Once more, the demands of real patriotism have little to do with what Abela thinks. The national interest demands keeping in mind the judgements likely to be reached by international institutions, monitoring authorities and investors.

We know what their taken-for-granted standard is. When faced with criminal charges – whether or not grounded in fact – responsible people resign from office. They do that to display their probity, not because they’re admitting guilt. They do it to defend their institution’s good name.

By not resigning, Scicluna is raising all kinds of questions, at the international level, that are separate from the charges against him.

If he doesn’t know this is a resigning matter, what else doesn’t he know? If he’s so determined to hold on to his job, what else would he do, or omit doing, to hold on to it?

These are questions about his competence and blind spots, not his guilt. They don’t go away even if you assume that, eventually, the case against Scicluna will be dismissed as baseless.

One important aspect of the Central Bank governor’s job is to give guarantees about Malta’s financial rectitude with authority. The longer Scicluna hangs on to office, the more he is destroying the international credibility he needs to do his job well.

The prime minister isn’t in a position to weigh in authoritatively. Abela is the one torching the judiciary while gabbling about patriotism and sovereignty.

So, yes, patriotism is in the balance. But we – not least our financial wise men and women – don’t need to wait for June to speak up for constitutional patriotism. We should, like Fearne, do it now.

Otherwise we’re left stranded in this pretty state. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, Abela’s ego-based patriotism is an infantile disease, like the measles. And the government has just lost its paediatrician.