After seeing out the Old yesterday, today we ring in the New – and, as Homer said in the Odyssey, as long ago as nine centuries Before Christ, it is always the latest song that the audience applauds the most. There is a spark of hope in mankind that urges us towards a better future. Novelty feeds our aspirations and our aspirations pine for peace and prosperity. But we cannot have prosperity, and social harmony even less, unless we take stock of reality and act accordingly.

The year 2005 has been a difficult one for Malta and its people.

It has been well said that year’s end is not really an end, but a going on. Time has no divisions to mark its passage. But it is capable of accumulating our experiences to enhance our wisdom.

During the past year, Malta’s economic pulse-beat was, once again, on the weak side, while the fever of political polarisation tended to rise and remain on the high side. It did no good to the body politic.

After another year of vigorous hand-to-hand combat, can’t our politicians take stock of their experience and devote more attention to the economic engine, and less to personalised confrontation?

Couldn’t our elder statesmen, on each side of the political divide, aided by the responsible media, stand up for the democratic system and parliamentary democracy, which rest on the principle of pluralism?

This presumes that a freely elected government has the responsibility to run the affairs of state while the Opposition assumes the role of watchdog in the public interest, in and out of Parliament.

In present-day circumstances, governments lose their parliamentary majority either by a split in the party or after a general election. Although the Opposition may zealously probe in search of a crack in the government party’s defences, excessive zeal tends to cement together sections likely to crack.

Logic of modern approach

In these circumstances, the tactics of the Opposition seek to convert the electorate rather than the government party in the House. It seeks to appeal to floating voters, to reclaim the ‘lost sheep’, to soothe the disaffected elements that stray from the ruling party, in order to turn the tide of public opinion in its favour.

The logic of a democratic parliamentary system, in fact, compels the Opposition to adopt a responsible attitude since it is, fundamentally, not merely the Opposition but the alternative government.

If these facts of life are clearly understood, politicians on both sides of the political divide would be more relaxed, and their supporters would be less inclined to engage in futile trench warfare.

It is worth emphasising that parliamentary activity is only one of the instruments of opposition. Granted that Parliament is a venue to redress grievances and for exposing defective policies and acts of maladministration, modern opposition parties focus on public opinion and on access to the electorate at large through the media and all available means of communication.

Mass meetings, necessary at crucial moments, are otherwise weapons of last resort. The new style relies on house calls, policy papers, and exercises in dialogue with constituents.

Needless to say, the ruling party, which is endowed with the paraphernalia of office in addition to its party resources, does its own thing with equal vigour.

Rules of the game

What matters, however, is that all political parties under a system of parliamentary democracy must abide by the rules of the game.

The system assumes a “loyal opposition” – one that has the right and the duty to oppose. So long as its rights and duty are respected, a democratic society expects it to be loyal to the hilt.

Democracy could be snuffed out by a coup or by revolution. This is not easily done where the electorate knows its rights and is on the alert. But democracy could also be denuded, or debilitated, or even subjugated, by political acts.

It is for this reason that one expects political parties to be transparent, to uphold democratic principles, and to be credible. It is also for this reason that political polarisation makes no sense. The slow suffocation of democracy is a threat to liberty.

Liberty is, by far, more than the independence of a nation. It is not a catalogue of political ‘rights’. Liberty is a thing of the spirit – to be free to think, to uphold principles and to speak without fear, free to challenge wrong with surety of justice. The right of responsible dissent is an essential ingredient in a democratic framework

Threat to liberty

In its mildest form, the threat to liberty seeks a breakdown of confidence by defamation and/or character assassination. Its methods range from the manipulation of information to intimidation and the deionisation of individuals.

The average sane elector objects to the reduction of his or her freedom. But the electorate could be drenched in torrents of words in which real purposes are disguised in portrayals of Utopia, idealism without realism, slogans destructive of confidence, easy promises of drastic action against incurable ills, a smear campaign of prejudice against rivals, deflecting attention from corruption.

This is how liberty could die in the water from its own well – free speech poisoned by hate and untruth.

In this scenario, the dreams of those who aspire to Utopia are shattered, and the people find themselves marching backwards to the Middle Ages, as regimented men and women.

It is this scenario that continues to haunt and intimidate the broad segment of the electorate that aspires to breathe the fresh air of democratic government.

Is it too much to expect an improved political climate as the New Year comes marching in?

It is a thought well worth savouring, and which I commend to all readers of this newspaper, together with my best New Year wishes to the editor and staff of this paper and to all who read this column.

[email protected]