When Public Investments Minister Dr Austin Gatt disposed of the government’s interests in Maltacom, he threw public property into the bargain with the stroke of the pen.

The laws of Malta require Parliamentary approval for the disposal of public property, but Dr Austin Gatt went ahead with the transaction as if he was master of all he surveyed.

When questioned in the House about his high-handedness, Dr Gatt characteristically dismissed his critics by arguing that the government has a five-seat majority in the House, implying that his dictat could be taken as read!

Affront to Parliament

Grave as it is, this does not merely amount to an affront to Parliament. It conveys the disturbing connotation that, if pursued to its logical end, it could amount to a threat to Maltese democracy.

This is not to say that Austin Gatt is set to go all the way. But, unless checked, he has enunciated a principle that gives him carte blanche.

Some voices from the Opposition did challenge him. But there has as yet not been a single voice from the government side to speak for democracy on this issue. It is the government party that wields power, and it has done or said nothing to dissociate itself from Austin Gatt’s obiter dictum. The emerging situation is pregnant with ominous possibilities, and it is the Prime Minister’s duty to clear the air. So far he has stayed mum.

Issue of concern

This issue is of concern for many reasons. We in Malta want the assurance that our democratic set-up is scrupulously respected, and that the dignity of Parliament is upheld. But Malta is now a member of the European Union whose core principles are based on the foundation stone of parliamentary democracy. The EU has a stake in holding aloft its core principles. Granted that it is slow moving, sooner rather than later, it has to take a stand on this issue, unless Dr Gonzi pre-empts the ongoing debate.

The debate is about the government’s democratic credentials and about the effectiveness or otherwise of the EU’s vigilance in upholding the principles, as well as the practice, of parliamentary democracy.

Does it follow from Austin Gatt’s unchallenged dictum that the government is free to proceed, at its discretion, with other measures on the strength of its five-seat majority in the House, without bringing them up for debate?

Does it mean that on the strength of Austin Gatt’s assumptions, other ministers and government entities are free to do their own thing, without preliminary parliamentary scrutiny when the rules of procedure so require?

Foremost truth

The truth that makes men free is, for the most part, the truth some politicians prefer not to hear. In democratic politics, the foremost truth revolves around the dangers of any form of uncontrolled power.

John Quincy Adams once said, “Despotism or unlimited sovereignty is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratic council, an oligarchic junta, and a single emperor.” That’s why usurping the rights of Parliament amounts to a cardinal sin against democracy.

It would go against the grain if Malta, after achieving independence, is reduced to a mass of citizens thrown hither and thither by an aristocracy of privileged politicians, of whatever political colour, holding sway without proper democratic scrutiny.

There is little time left to assimilate this lesson. The enemies of freedom do not argue. They impose in the manner of bigots.

But the mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you expose it to, the more it will contract.

The long and short of it is that a government, which dwarfs its Parliament in order that it may be a more docile instrument in its hands even for beneficial purposes – will find that, with small MPs, nothing great will be accomplished. At the same time, the path to a viable parliamentary democracy is blocked much more by those who wish to obey, than by those who desire to command.

Although the still waters of Maltese politics were visibly muddied by Austin Gatt’s ill-considered dictum, there has been no uproar from the general body of local opinion-makers. That silence exposes Gonzi all the more – both as Prime Minister as well as PN leader.

He stands naked at the bar of history, apparently unable or unwilling to clutch at a fig leaf that would have saved him from political shame.

[email protected]