There is no denying that the Maltese economy is passing through a difficult phase, notwithstanding past predictions that a “New Spring” was in the offing. The latest budget measures unleashed by the Gonzi administration were such that they provoked the misgivings – even the criticism – of some Nationalist politicians and PN-leaning columnists.

The Labour opposition was, of course, much more forthright and incisive in its criticism

There is a school of thought which holds that, at this time of economic stress, the government and the opposition ought to join forces and pull together until the economy is out of the wood. Short of translating this into a proposal for a national government (calling for the agreement of the two sides), such thinking is, at best, simplistic.

Main function

The main function of the opposition, it has often been said, is to oppose. There is a good deal of truth, and even more sense, in this. Our devotion to parliamentary democracy is based partly on the belief that no one party or group ever has a monopoly of political wisdom. Every policy has some drawbacks, and it is a good thing for whoever is in opposition to point them out. How to oppose is the opposition’s privilege as much as it is its prerogative.

The need to defend their policies in Parliament may well lead ministers to think more carefully about the advantages and disadvantages of each policy before it is adopted.

Quite apart from this, the exposure of government actions and plans to continuous criticism in Parliament is a reasonably effective way of keeping the public informed about what their government is doing.

Even more important is the fact that the electorate is offered alternatives to think about, when the time comes for it to exercise its options. This system alerts groups within the community to the prospect of government actions that may affect their interests and, moreover, it helps electors to form some kind of judgment on the efficiency and equity of government policy.

Although, in this context, the opposition has a privileged position in our Parliamentary system, the very fact of party discipline, which keeps MPs on both sides of the House under a tight leash, denies it much influence over the activities of the government.

Once the government has a clear majority in the House, party loyalty and party discipline ensure that this is reflected in parliament-ary divisions, and the opposition has no immediate and effective chance of defeating the government on issues of substantial importance.

This means that the opposition cannot aspire to power until the next election.

It is worth pointing out at this stage, that the opposition is almost as impotent in respect of legislation. The government has complete control over the parliamentary time-table, subject to various conventions that are respected by the leaders of both sides. The result is that the opposition cannot prevent the passage of government bills if the government is determined to enact them.

Determining factor

It is therefore fairer to say that governments lose elections than that oppositions win them. The determining factor is the decisive “swing of the pendulum”. This is what the system of parliamentary democracy is all about: it makes possible the ordered alternation of power by the sovereign electorate through a free vote.

Opposition criticism and verbal opposition is exercised within limits that are fairly defined. The parliamentary game has its rules which contribute to the orderly progress of parliamentary and government business.

There are pairing arrangements, often arranged by the whips, which facilitate the smooth running of business. A lot of work is carried out in the various standing committees of the House, to filter the workload.

None of this takes the heat off the routine confrontation called for by the democratic process. That confrontation is the stuff of democracy. It is as frivolous as it is pointless to associate such confrontation with “gimmicks”, particularly when one could not withstand the heat of effective opposition criticism.

Three factors

It is true that the combination of three factors – party discipline, the government’s advantage in terms of specialised information and the tradition of executive leadership – necessarily limits the influence of the opposition over major questions of policy.

The government can ignore the views of the opposition provided it is prepared to withstand a barrage of verbal and media criticism. It cannot ignore, in equal measure, the views of its own supporters, for their attacks can weaken the position of ministers within the party and, in the last resort, they can depose the party leader. But ministers can override the views of a minority within their party, if they are sure that it has no chance of becoming a majority, and if its leaders lack the power or the will to stage an open revolt.

This does not mean that the opposition’s role is ineffectual when it faces an overbearing government.

Not only must it criticise the government of the day, it must also present an image of a creditable alternative government that knows what it is doing and where it is going.

If it is to win the next general election, the opposition must look like a united, dynamic body, competent to govern the country. It must develop a theme with which to capture the attention of electors and the support of a majority of them.

What the electorate expects is not so much a detailed programme, as the agenda items which fit the mood of the period and offer the promise that the opposition party may remedy, at least, some of the shortcomings of the existing government

The average elector is interested in the improvement of his condition and in the safeguard of his acquired rights – not so much in the nitty-gritty, which is the job of the people he or she elects. If the elector feels that the economy is mismanaged, and earnings are eroded as a result, and that abuse of power is undermining the basic principles of social justice, he or she aspires to change. In a democracy, change comes via the electoral process.

In the final analysis, the opposition in Parliament has a defined role and, at its very best, it works within clear limitations.

Its performance in the House is only one of the weapons it can use to win over the sovereign electorate. It is in the electoral forum that it can assert itself and, eventually, be returned to power. That is where the real action is.

[email protected]