In the classic Monty Python sketch, a seething customer walks into a pet shop. A half hour earlier he’d been sold a dead parrot, nailed to its perch to look alive. The shop assistant insists the parrot is only resting, and starts talking about the magnificent plumage. The customer bangs the stiff parrot on the counter. He insists it’s dead, deceased, an ex-parrot. But the assistant says it’s a Norwegian Blue and they like to rest.
There, in a nutshell, is Malta, full of public figures selling dead parrots. Contrary to all the evidence, Konrad Mizzi says he has no link to 17 Black. Joseph Muscat says he is the exemplar of self-sacrifice. Our Attorney General says any responsible lawyer would have given the police the same infamous instructions he did (implying the prime minister, who said he’d have done things differently, is an irresponsible lawyer).
Now, President George Vella tells us the question of who should be leader of the opposition is settled. Good luck with that. The President’s own decision ensures continued volatility.
First, the President’s reasoning is contradicted by facts, not just the legal interpretation of several authorities. Kevin Aquilina, the legal scholar, has pointed out that it is factually mistaken to say that the leader of the main opposition party must be the leader of the opposition in parliament. Back in 2008, Muscat was party leader for four months during which Charles Mangion was leader of the opposition.
There’s another inconvenient fact that’s been missed. Adrian Delia was leader of the Nationalist Party for three weeks while still scrabbling around for a seat in parliament. Without it he could not be sworn in as opposition leader. No one invoked the letter of the law at the time.
Delia benefitted from one interpretation of the law then; now he wants to benefit from the contrary interpretation. The President’s decision centres on a man who himself is proof of the factual contradiction in the decision.
Where does that leave the PN? Currently, in a state that makes it incapable of governing anything, let alone the country- Ranier Fsadni
Second, it’s clear that Vella was troubled by his conclusion. He describes the situation he had to resolve as a constitutional dilemma caused by a political party crisis. That diagnosis throws an ugly shadow over the man who is not prepared to pull back to spare the country’s democracy the turmoil that has sucked in the President.
Delia’s disregard for the impact on our national democracy is disqualifying. That’s not how exemplary democratic leaders behave.
Two decades ago, the then new leader of the German Christian Democrats (CDU), Wolfgang Schäuble, suddenly found the CDU embroiled in a funding scandal inherited from his predecessor, Helmut Kohl. Schäuble’s integrity was never in serious question. Yet he resigned, stating that a party crisis should not be allowed to become a democratic one. He sacrificed himself to spare the country continued doubts about the integrity of its system.
All this is apart from the several opposition leaders, in recent years alone, from New Zealand to the UK to Sweden, who agreed to stand down in the interests of their political party, since they were not making headway in the polls.
From Delia, instead, we get dead parrot arguments. The President’s decision, he says, must be respected in the name of rule of law. Are the legal authorities challenging the interpretation, therefore, against the rule of law? Would a legal challenge in the courts amount to lack of respect for the law?
He says those who genuinely love the country should unite. Oh, they are. Lawrence Gonzi, Louis Galea and Tonio Borg have joined the ranks of those telling him to do the right thing.
There is no question of their love of country. It’s his that’s in question. Unlike Schäuble, he refuses to spare the country this convulsion.
Third, the convulsions will continue as long as he’s leader. He causes his own crises (which does not exculpate his party opponents of fault and occasional egregiousness). His past actions keep coming back to haunt the PN.
In themselves, the few published WhatsApp messages from Yorgen Fenech were not damning. I’d argue they demonstrate that (at least at that point) they were not on over-familiar terms – Fenech’s tone is that of someone trying to cajole his way in.
But Delia’s evasiveness on these messages, when questioned by the executive committee, suggests that there is more. On Tuesday, he reportedly reacted to the PN youth wing’s questions by demanding to see their WhatsApp messages.
That’s not the reaction of a leader who commands authority. It’s someone with his back to the wall. Once the evidence from Fenech’s phone and hard-drive begins to be laid out in the courts, it’s reasonable to expect more embarrassing information to emerge about Delia.
Hence the leadership crisis will continue. It’s not just about mistakes or misjudgements that lie in the past. They have a present and future life. And his attempts to cover them up are themselves so unsavoury they show why he is unfit to hold public office.
Where does that leave the PN? Currently, in a state that makes it incapable of governing anything, let alone the country. If it pulls through this crisis, however, its sacrifices and torments will have demonstrated that it’s made up of men and women ready to stand up for principle.
Labour cannot afford to let them win. If they do, where would that leave the Labour leadership’s inaction against the disgraced Muscat and cronies? Therefore, democracy must be turned on its head. Insisting on accountability for everyone, even leaders, must be made to seem disloyal. It must seem a recipe for chaos, not a restoration of order.
Just remember. Whatever they tell you about the magnificent plumage, it’s still a dead parrot.