If you have had the pleasure of seeing the film Fiddler on the Roof, then you must have listened to the opening song that dwells on the question of tradition. The lyrics refer to the way of life in a remote Russian village, where everything seems to be regulated by a code of conduct and a set of rules. These rules enabled everyone to know his place, what was expected of him and what his duties were. In other words, as long as one lived by this set of codes of conduct all would be well. However, as the story progresses, many of these traditions fall by the wayside and the characters had to amend their ways to accommodate the whims, pleasures and atrocities of their suppressors.

Politicians in Malta also operate within a set of rules and traditions. Some tend to favour the party in government and some have the tendency of giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt.

We have the tradition that the party in opposition should keep the party in government on its toes in more ways than one. However one would appreciate if the opposition were to carry out this duty in a more gentlemanly fashion.

The opposition can and should go to the people, repeatedly telling them that things are not going according to plan and that if elected to power, they would solve all the woes of the day. This communication with the electorate can take the form of meetings, conferences, demonstrations and speeches. However the latest agenda taken up by the Opposition Leader seems to have somewhat gone beyond the rules of the game.

Having been in opposition for so many years must have had an effect in Dr Sant’s modus operandi. He has mastered the art of criticising everything and everyone who has anything to do with the administration and the governance of this country.

If his criticism were to be supported by concrete proposals, which would help alleviate problems and seek solutions, this would be greatly appreciated and perhaps his suggestions would even be taken up by the administration.

To criticise merely for the sake of addressing negatively practically every policy or legislation proposed by the government, only to then perform a u-turn and accept it as the right policy, years down the road, is something that the opposition has become well-known for.

This has happened with so many of the steps taken by the Nationalist government in addressing financial legislation, foreign policy, economic strategy and so on. Examples are Dr Sant’s crusade against the introduction of VAT, the abandoning of Malta’s participation in the Partnership for Peace process as well as his opposition, which managed to split the island’s population down the middle, against the decision to join the European Union.

These tactics have changed the old tradition of how the opposition should work. When the Nationalist Party was in opposition, it criticised the government, as was its duty to do, but proposed alternatives. It demanded the derailing of policies introduced and implemented in the various sectors, but for each it would present something else. Now, the tradition has changed. Today criticism is made simply for the sake of criticism itself. Dr Sant is happy simply because he is branded as being the one who is able to say “no!”

During parliamentary sittings, if the opposition deems that matters are getting out of hand – this generally happens when it realises that, after all, government proposals are attaining the sought for results and things are moving ahead smoothly – there is a tendency that every time that there are fewer than 15 members actually in the chamber of the House (even if more than 15 are present in the building as a whole) – the opposition whip or any other one of its members will call a quorum. The sitting is suspended and re-started within five minutes when the government benches would once again be occupied by at least 14 members plus the member across the floor who had tabled the request for the verification of the quorum.

This approach too has become the run of the mill, especially during question time when the answers given to parliamentary questions do not meet the satisfaction of the opposition. I believe that Joe Mizzi has become an expert in this regard as during the last few sittings, especially those held before Easter, he had made tens of quorum calls.

But then there are other ways of playing the game and the government, if it deems that parliamentary work is being heckled just for the fun of it, could introduce a procedural motion to curtail such legally acceptable but very unethical ways of behaving.

All this is over and above calls for abdications, resignations and fresh elections during speeches made by exponents of the opposition during the Second Reading stage.

The latest arrival onto the local political scene is the creation of a new tactic. It mainly consists in the opposition hierarchy addressing conferences in which they “warn” the Prime Minister or any other minister, parliamentary secretary or civil servant of pitfalls which are round the corner and into which the government is blindly heading.

The latest warning to “watch it” has been given within the context of the change over to the euro. The opposition is criticising everything and everyone in this regard; be it double pricing, the determination shown by the government, the work undertaken by the Euro Changeover Committee, the Central Bank etc. – indeed anything connected thereto.

Has Dr Sant forgotten the days when Malta went decimal in 1972, under a Labour administration? Inflation went hay-wire at the time.

But then, this is within the now established tradition of the MLP – as it will be also in line with tradition that, come 2008, when hopefully the euro will have been taken up by the nation as its currency, and Labour will have lost the general election, the Opposition Leader (Dr Sant or someone else) will make one more u-turn and decide that “The adoption of the euro is not such a bad thing after all and that it is here to stay.”