Playing by the Rules

The Malta Independent on Sunday



This Sunday newspaper has an influential editorial line strongly in favour of Malta`s membership in the EU at the next enlargement.` It has a right to do so. It portrays its opinion in doctrinal terms, as an opportunity not to be missed, a unique chance to catch the last train to heaven and that no alternatives are worth considering because none exist.

Its contributors` line-up firmly reflects the editorial line with this fortnightly contribution being a sole small counterbalance to the other four or five opinions appearing weekly all eulogising EU membership. Obviously it is also fully within the right of the editor in charge to line up contributors` whose opinion is tilted in a way to support his editorial line, though it does little to add value to the independent nametag.

What the editor of this newspaper, or any one for that matter, has no right to do is to threaten a priori a future democratically elected Labour government with political instability if Labour sets out to execute the programme on the basis of which it gets democratically elected. This is telling Labour that if against the Paper`s wishes the people choose it to govern, it is not entitled to do so in accordance with its manifesto but has to follow policies set out by its predecessors and supported by this Paper. Sort of you can only govern if you do what I say.

`What the editor of this newspaper, or any one for that matter, has no right to do is to threaten a priori a future democratically elected Labour government with political instability if Labour sets out to execute the programme on the basis of which it gets democratically elected.` Last Sunday this Paper editorially warned Labour that if it is elected democratically to follow an EU partnership policy and thus disregards a consultative referendum decision taken earlier which favours membership, Labour would be inviting political instability as that of the third Labour legislature between 1982-1987.` That legislature was marked by parliamentary and social boycotts, bombs exploding mysteriously on doorsteps of whoever co-operated with the elected government and bad publicity circulated internationally to scare away investment from coming to Malta.

So what are we saying here` That we need an opposition as a mere ornament to give credence to the PN democratic credentials` That the opposition has no right to govern in accordance with its democratically chosen mandate and has to be tied to an earlier consultative decision which carried no facility of execution`

Is a decision taken by the people in terms of the Constitution during a general election mandating their chosen government to execute a pre-defined political programme in any way subordinate to any other decision taken earlier which does not require two-thirds majority of the House to over-rule` Certainly a popular decision in a consultative referendum, taken with prior knowledge that it carried no possibility of execution unless the electoral mandate is first renewed, does not qualify as needing two-thirds House majority to over-rule.

Democracy has always been played by the rule that the last will of the people should prevail. Take the electoral mandate of 1996. It was meant to run until December 2001.` But once people were given the opportunity to express their wishes again in a new general election in September 1998, nobody dared suggest that the new government`s mandate was in any way subordinate to the previous government`s mandate even though this had not run its full term. `A clarification or a retraction is well due to ensure that our press, influential as it may be, has the means and the goodwill to play by the democratic rules whoever the government happens to be.`

Editors have to play by the rules.` The will of the people is supreme whether editors agree with it or not. Their eternal right to disagree does not give them a right to threaten or obstruct the execution of the programme mandated by the majority. A clarification or a retraction is well due to ensure that our press, influential as it may be, has the means and the goodwill to play by the democratic rules whoever the government happens to be.

Incidents like these prove the futility of holding a consultative referendum prior to an election thus being short of the power to execute the option chosen in the referendum. Instead of terminating indecision and anxiety, a pre-election referendum stokes further indecision leading to unfair instability to a democratically elected government by those who find difficulty playing by the rules and who try to give more meaning to a consultative referendum than it truly has.

Yet another reason why it makes full sense to proceed immediately to a general election and then follow it up immediately as necessary with a referendum on the EU issue knowing that the government in sede has the necessary authority to execute the people consultative decision taken in a post-election referendum.

Once executed the referendum decision becomes binding on us all whether we agree with it or not.

As I said elsewhere I am all for a binding referendum, but one that is carried on a national basis, away from the election heat, with choices properly and calmly explained and executed soon after the next election.