The Labour Party was not completely wrong when it labelled the Forza Nazzjonali PN-PD coalition as the ‘coalition of confusion’.
Forza Nazzjonali had a noble aim: that of bringing together all those who wanted to rid the country of corruption and restore good governance. Alternattiva Demokratika opted out and in the end there were two parties forming the new political alliance; the onceproud Nationalist Party and the newly-formed Partit Demokratiku, led by former Labour MP Marlene Farrugia and also including her partner, Godfrey, who until eight weeks ago, was still the Labour Party Whip.
The two parties joined forces after protracted talks and announced that, because of how our electoral law works, the PD candidates would run under the PN banner. This meant that they would be listed with the PN’s candidates but would be identified by the wording ‘talorangjo’ after their names.
The way it was explained to the electorate was that, should Forza Nazzjonali (it was never officially referred to as the PN-PD coalition) win the election this would be a twoparty coalition government. The parties also went to the polls under a single electoral manifesto.
History was written when Marlene Farrugia was elected on 4 June, becoming the first MP from a third party since the mid-1960s. Then, earlier this week, Godfrey Farrugia also made it to Parliament through a casual election.
But before this happened, the (opposition) alliance was put in jeopardy. During a constitutional court case in which the PL challenged the Electoral Commission’s decision to grant the PN two extra seats (as a result of the rule of proportionality) the court said there was conclusive evidence that Marlene Farrugia had contested the last general election as a Nationalist candidate and had made it to parliament on the PN ticket. This immediately opened up Forza Nazzjonali to harsh criticism, with the PL saying that there were only two parties in Parliament, not three.
To make matters worse, the PN’s daily newspaper yesterday referred to Godfrey Farrugia, on its front page no less, as a PN candidate.
Seemingly reacting to the report, Marlene Farrugia yesterday insisted that she and Godfrey will in fact represent the PD in Parliament, adding that the number of political parties in the House is three.
But the PD has requested to attend meetings of the PN Parliamentary Group. The matter will be discussed by the PN on Friday.
The PN should not accept the PD to attend its Parliamentary Group meetings and the PD should not have asked to do so. The Farrugias cannot expect to represent the PD but at the same time be involved in the internal discussions and mechanics of the PN. This is not how coalitions work. If they are privy to every PN meeting, and can actually take part in the decision making process, how can they say they belong to another party?
This is certainly not what the 4,000 who chose PD in the general election voted for. This is especially the case for those who elected Marlene Farrugia on the 10th district, who are not loyal Zurrieq constituents but rather people who wanted an alternative to the PN. That choice must be respected. The PN and PD cannot morph into one party. On INDEPTH, Marlene Farrugia said she would not be bound by the rules laid down by the PN Whip but would vote according to what she thinks is right or wrong. While this is commendable, it is also another reason why the PD should not be a part of the PN Parliamentary Group. The PD MPs also need to keep in mind that a new PN leader, who will be in place by midSeptember, might be less sympathetic to the alliance. After all, there were many voices from within the PN warning that the PN was making a mistake by allowing other players into the fold.
The fact is that three weeks after the election there is still some confusion regarding how the PN-PD relationship will work and these issues should have been resolved way before the election.