Skimpy blue mini dresses

Whenever I leaf through the papers or surf online forums these days I come across the writings of a band of paper warriors. Among their ranks I find former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon, columnist Andrew Borg Cardona, blogger Fr Joe Borg and more recently Ranier Fsadni, chairman of the PN-linked AZAD.

While their previous contributions to the press covered a broad range of topics, as of late they seem to be overtly concerned with the issue of a political coalition - or rather, refuting the possibility of such a coalition ever being formed or warning us of what they perceive to be the dire consequences of this electoral choice.

Taking to the keyboards instead of brandishing heftier weapons, swamping us in an avalanche of words, they are united in fighting for their newly found cause - the anti-coalition cause. Unfortunately, some of their arguments are as skimpy as the tiniest mini-dress and provide as much defence against a logical and objective analysis.

The anti-coalition crusade was launched by Michael Falzon. He stated that coalition was practically impossible because of the way the electoral boundaries had been re-drawn. For some masochistic reason, the PN is supposed to have allowed this to be done in a way that favours the MLP. So, concluded Falzon, the MLP will probably either gain an absolute majority or have such a comfortable relative majority that it will be able to govern alone, without the necessity of forming a coalition with AD if the latter have one or more candidates elected.

Falzon promised us a smug "I told you so" letter following the election results. Well, I don't hold much store by Falzon's prophesies - especially as he evidently didn't foresee his obtaining the least number of votes among the Nationalist candidates in the MEP elections. However, if his thesis were right, then I would have expected his declaration to have stopped the coalition movement dead in its tracks.

I mean, why expend energy and fire power on an impossible or very unlikely scenario? Instead our anti-coalition band and the PN machine has gone into overdrive, banging on about how dangerous and undesirable a coalition would be. Frantic e-mails do the rounds. During house visits, working mothers who just want to serve out the curry simmering on the hob have to put up with Nationalist candidates uttering dark warnings about coalitions bringing the country to its knees. Now there are rumours of a DVD blitz about this supposedly terrible prospect. I don't have any polls to hand but I take this mad flurry of activity as a sign that the possibility of a coalition exists. After all, is it so improbable for neither of the two major parties to obtain an absolute majority (50 per cent plus one of votes) and for AD to elect one or more representatives?

With that out of the way, let's go on to some of the other anti-coalition arguments used recently. Most of them are based on an inaccurate portrayal of how coalitions work. For example, Ranier Fsadni thinks that the possibility of an AD-PN is out of the question because (a) AD as a junior coalition partner would bring down the government at the drop of a hat, if its coalition partner crossed one of its red lines, and (b) AD is being very cheeky indeed - criticising the political party it might be forming a coalition with.

First, we'll address the "coalitions-are-as-flimsy-as-georgette-night-dresses-and-as-easily blown away" angle. Despite the Italian example which is constantly fished out to illustrate this point, unstable coalitions are the exception and not the rule. The great majority of European countries are governed by stable and safe coalition governments. Germany, the Benelux countries, Demark, Finland, Sweden and Ireland are governed successfully by a multi-party system. This comes about because of the way coalitions are formed. After an election, prospective coalition partners hold talks to see which of them share the same goals and objectives. Having ascertained which parties will make up the coalition, a coalition document is signed. This describes how the partners intend to work in government. It will include the allocation of responsibilities, the sectors which the partners wish to promote and also certain issues which the coalition partners are unwilling to compromise on.

An example of such a no-go area (or a red line) would be withdrawal from the EU. On matters which are not of red-line status, agreement is reached by compromise. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. After all, most of the laws passed through Parliament (even with the present PN vs MLP set-up) are passed consensually, with improvements being suggested by both. What's to stop more co-operation of the sort, especially when the coalition partners share objectives? We have recently seen the PN "green" itself and seconding many of AD's proposals regarding the environment (Turning Gozo into an eco-island being one of them). This is the first step towards a successful working relationship. It would be a pity to pass up this opportunity of a synergistic, consensual mode of governance because we assume that one-party has all the answers. Quite clearly, no one party does.

Fsadni asks if coalition partners would lose their credibility if they did not reach a compromise on all their electoral promises. Undoubtedly they would, if they "sold out" on certain key issues in their manifesto. But again, this would be the case if the issue at stake was an important one and not one on which a compromise could be reached. If, for example, AD suddenly decided it would be acceptable to have the Ta' Ċenċ plateau turned into a back-to-back housing estate, it would have betrayed the aspirations of those voters who supported it and would have to face the consequences at the polls.

The oddest anti-coalition argument used by Fsadni is that a coalition government cannot be formed between parties which have criticised each other. He asks whether the German politician Joschka Fischer ever hurled insults at his coalition partner Gerhard Schroeder as Harry Vassallo has hurled at Lawrence Gonzi.

Now I don't recall any personal insults or destructive criticism hurled at Gonzi's head. But I remember reading about Joschka Fischer addressing the vice-president of the parliament with the words: "With respect, Mr. President, you are an a*****e". The point is that different political parties have a duty to question and scrutinise each other's proposals, to see whether these policies are sound, and to criticise maladministration or questionable practices if they are in evidence. Anything less would be a dereliction of its duty to the electorate.

No party is above criticism and comment on its merits or demerits should not be interpreted as an unwarranted attack. Even the members of the anti-coalition brigade will admit to that. Unless their blue mini-dress arguments have shrivelled up to blindfolds which don't allow them to see that constructive criticism is healthy and that being nodding yes-men is more dangerous.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt