The great divide

To emphasise the present political divide that splits the US into a '50:50 nation', a special report on the forthcoming US elections carried in The Economist some months ago, opened up with the following quotation from Charles Dickens's Pickwick Papers:

"Every man in Eatanswill, conscious of the weight that attached to his example, felt himself bound to unite, heart and soul, with one of the two great parties that divided the town - the Blues and the Buffs. Now the Blues lost no opportunity of opposing the Buffs, and the Buffs lost no opportunity of opposing the Blues; and the consequence was, that whenever the Buffs and Blues met together at public meetings, town hall, fair or market, disputes and high words arose between them. With these dissensions it is almost superfluous to say that everything in Eatanswill was made a party question. There were Blue shops and Buff shops, Blue Inns and Buff Inns; there was a Blue aisle and a Buff aisle in the very church itself."

This excerpt, of course, probably suits Malta more than it tallies with the situation in the US. The controversy on the appointment of Dr Eddie Fenech Adami as President of the Republic was yet just another run-of-the-mill red-vs.-blue dispute, even though an attempt was made by the MLP to disguise the discord as some pious disagreement with dissension! The reaction of the Labour Opposition to the Government's choice of President this time around has actually been simply a repetition of its previous disagreement stances.

In April 1989 the Labour Opposition voted against the motion appointing Censu Tabone President of the Republic and even boycotted the swearing-in ceremony. According to what then Leader of the Opposition Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici said in Parliament, in choosing a President one had to find a person who reconciled the nation and Censu Tabone was not the right person for this, so much so that the process of reconciliation was going to be hindered by his choice.

Five years later, KMB's successor, Alfred Sant, insisted that the country should consider the possibility of Censu Tabone remaining President for another five-year term, even though he knew that the Constitution is explicit on each President being appointed for not more than one term.

When it came to the crunch, the Labour Opposition again voted against - albeit without asking for a division - the appointment of Ugo Mifsud Bonnici as President in 1994, as Dr Mifsud Bonnici had been active in party politics (surprise, surprise).

In the run-up to this appointment, Dr Sant had insisted that the President should be appointed only for three years, obviously so that a new Labour government would be able to appoint its own President soon after being elected! How's that for reconciling the nation? Yet, as fate would have it, a new Labour government did get elected, only for Dr Sant to end up praising Dr Mifsud Bonnici for the way he behaved when his administration faced the crisis that led to its early and unexpected end.

Five years ago Dr Sant was convinced that the choice of Guido de Marco as President was wrong because it was 'divisive'. Dr Sant not only insisted that Professor de Marco was a bad choice as he could not symbolise national unity but also alleged that he had a principal role in the plots that had undermined the 1996 Labour administration and led to an early election. (I am sure Guido must have secretly wished this were true!) Of course, the Labour Opposition voted against the appointment, this time yet again insisting on a division.

So what's new this time around? The only thing that was original in Dr Sant's disagreement with the choice of Dr Fenech Adami for President was that he did not just deem it to be 'divisive' as usual. He even considered it to be vulgar as well!

The irony of this incessant discord is that by hindsight, everyone acknowledged that each person whose appointment was deemed incompatible with the office of President by the Labour Opposition actually knew how to rise above partisan politics and act in the way the President is expected to act by the Maltese people. To be fair, this also applies to the two prominent Labour ministers - Anton Buttigieg and Agatha Barbara - both of whom were appointed President on resigning from the House of Representatives a few days after being sworn as ministers following an election that returned a Labour government. According to Labour's philosophy, they should have been 'divisive' Presidents as well!

Of course that was in the bad old Mintoff days when the MLP saw nothing wrong with divisiveness, and reconciliation was a dirty word and when the Nationalist Party leaders were branded as 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people' just because they did not kowtow to the great leader and teacher. Yet the present MLP leadership that now sanctimoniously pretends that it is shocked by what it describes as the Government's divisive and arrogant stances at the same time often recalls those days with pride, and refuses to apologise - not even half-heartedly - for the appalling treatment that was then meted to anybody who was on the other side of the divide.

Did anyone say 'vulgar'?