The Constitution according to Franco
The Times, Tuesday
THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO FRANCO
Tony Zammit Cutajar
I have heard many interesting interpretations of our constitutional laws over the years but the most recent one by Franco Debono must surely take the cake.
I am, of course, no constitutional expert. I try to look at things in a non-legalistic way. What concerns me more is the layman’s view of what is or should be “the common good” rather than the nitty-gritty of the law.
First some facts. Dr Debono was elected to Parliament in 2008 on the Nationalist Party ticket and polled 2,065 first count votes from the 5th electoral district. In his press conference, he acknowledged that had he not contested on behalf of the PN, he would not have been elected to Parliament.
That, to me, is a fundamental statement which will return to haunt him. Using his own type of argument, Dr Debono represents less than one per cent (0.7% to be exact) of the people’s total vote of 290,799 valid votes cast in the last general election.
He has, over the last year or so, vociferously disagreed with the Cabinet of Ministers over several issues and has now declared that he no longer supports the party in government.
He has even gone so far as calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister stating, during his press conference, that “this is democracy”.
I too have disagreed with several of Dr Gonzi’s decisions. But here we are talking about the right and ability to govern. Here we have a situation where a member of Parliament is threatening to bring down a democratically elected government because perhaps the member has taken offence at not being elevated to ministerial status. Is this the democracy we want?
Am I to conclude that, according to Dr Debono, it is democratic to oppose the 143,468 citizens who voted in favour of the Nationalist Party and who rightly expect “their” government to serve a full term?
His rather rich reading of the situation is that only the calling of a general election or the resignation of Dr Gonzi can save the day.
Why is Dr Debono not considering the other option on the cards? It is very obvious that he does not agree with his party leader and with the party which, in his own words, put him in Parliament in the first place. The obvious and honourable thing for him to do is to resign from the PN and give up his seat in Parliament.
In this way he will respect the vote of all those who backed the PN at the last election and who should not be made to pay for his actions.
That, in my humble opinion, is what real democracy is all about. That Dr Debono should resign has been suggested by other commentators much more qualified than I. My hope must be that he reflects on what is best for our country, calls an immediate truce and that he respects the rules of the democratic game that I am sure he too is proud enough to uphold and defend.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Read this one, too:
http://markanthonysammut.blogspot.com/2012/01/structure-and-hierarchy.html
Excellent piece. Worth reading. This is the part I like best.
“In a Party, there’s a hierarchy, and you can’t just decide that because you ‘feel’ you are right, or you ‘believe’ you are right, than you are absolutely right. You are duty-bound to make your proposals and constructive criticism like everyone else, but you are not the one to take the final decision. There are people elected to take that decision after having heard everyone’s views.”
One issue that has not been debated is the so called impartiality of the President George Abela, his role as guardian of the Constitution. One needs to question his role behind the scene. Franco Debono himself claims that he spoke with him.
The media in Malta has a habit of praising Dr ABela for any action, irrespective whether it is admirable or non-significant. He can do no wrong, and the media conveniently ignores the fact that in 1996, he, together with Sant and George Vella, decided to withdraw Malta from the PFP and froze Malta’s EU application.
He openly disagreed with Sant on the decision to call an election during the crisis, which means that he wanted to keep Malta out of the EU. I disagree completely with Gonzi’s decision to appoint him as a President.
Dr. Abela is awkwardly silent during this crisis, but has a personal interest in helping the MLP get elected in government. His son is a prospective candidate, while his daughter forms part of the MLP’s administration. It was never revealed what advice ha gave Debonio, and whether he tried to calm him down, or push him further.
Unfortunately, the media, in particular The Times, is very submissive to George Abela. His own PR is also very effective, and seem to maintain an element of subtle intimidation around the office of the President.
[Daphne – No, P Shaw, it’s just that there are particular laws governing the treatment of the president in the media. It is illegal, for example, to mock the president. That’s right. And it has conditioned the attitude of journalists and editors even in ordinary reportage.]
I suspect that Franco Debono’s intention now is to have an independent seat in parliament. He can (in his own mind) then dictate to the party leaders whatever he wants to give them the support of his seat in parliament.
He can (again in his own mind) ask for a seat in the cabinet, dictate which ministry he wants, become deputy Prime Minister, decide which laws can be passed in parliament, and perhaps also have a say about which budget measures can be implemented. But this is only my suspicion.
The Constitution according to Franco will be very simple had he been made Prime Minister. Just two very simple rules:
1) Franco Debono is always right
2) When Franco Debono is wrong please refer to rule number one.
nice algorith!
‘Am I to conclude that, according to Dr Debono, it is democratic to oppose the 143,468 citizens who voted in favour of the Nationalist Party and who rightly expect “their” government to serve a full term?’
Should Franco vote in favour of the opposition in a probable vote of no confidence in the Government by the opposition he would be doing just that.
Franco has committed political suicide already. He is bent on pushing it further and is now also putting at risk his profession.
No one can blame the Nationalist electorate if it retaliates by boycotting his services.
At the elections we don’t elect a government, though it certainly feels like we are. We elect our representatives.
[Daphne – No, Albert, we elect a government. More to the point, we elect a prime minister.]
When these representatives group themsleves in parliament, the biggest group gets to govern, for as long as it remains the biggest group.
In Malta we have developed a warped “winner take all” mentality in elections that has little to do with how a Western democracy works.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong, Albert, as usual. Our parliamentary system is no different to Britain’s, because it is modelled on it.]
It’s the people, in their totality, who are sovereign, no the winning political party. The people express this sovereignty in parliament.
Moreover, the PN won the last election by 1,500 votes, one third of a quota. Its victory was therefore weak. What is happening now is a consequence of such a weak victory. Actually, I think that a government lasting almost 4 years after such a weak victory has already lived way past its welcome.
A lot of arguments are being constructed these days to support the pre-determined conclusion that Franco Debono should resign from his seat in parliament.
As usual, when you start with the conclusion and construct your arguments to support the conclusion (as opposed to reaching your conclusion based on the arguments made), the arguments do not always sound very convincing.
Did all these proponents of Debono’s resignation call for Mintoff to resign his seat rather than unseat Alfred Sant in 1998? Somehow I don’t think so. And they didn’t because it didn’t suit them to do so at the time. Now, however, the situation is different….
[Daphne – No, Interested Bystander, the situation in 1998 was different.]