A general theory of democratic government assumes that the rulers, whom the people are expected to obey, should not only rule in the people’s interest, but also according to the people’s wishes
The consent of the governed demands nothing less. That the elected majority should rule is now an accepted axiom. But parliamentary government, run on the Westminster model, also implies that, while the majority party in parliament runs the show, the opposition party has a recognised and privileged status. It is there to monitor and to act as a watchdog of the executive (the Cabinet).
In normal circumstances, the government is motored by its own majority in the House. Party loyalty and party discipline ensure that this is reflected in parliamentary divisions. In the same normal circumstances, the opposition cannot prevent the passage of government bills, and cannot even insist on their revision if the government is determined to keep them in their original form.
Basic consideration
Democracy is partly based on the belief that no one party or group ever has a monopoly of political wisdom. Therefore, the opposition opposes with vigour and criticises with diligence. If it projects itself as an alternative government of sufficient calibre, it aspires to win support at the next election.
Criticism and verbal opposition is supposed to be
carried on within limits that are fairly well-defined and understood. The parliamentary game has rules intended to maintain a delicate line between what is regarded as legitimate and what could be regarded as obstruction.
In normal circumstances, the opposition is expected to be cooperative in matters that contribute to the orderly progress of parliamentary and government business. The “pairing” system, for example, allows the government to conduct its overseas business with tranquillity. All-night sittings are rarely held, snap votes are not taken.
The principle normally adopted in mature democracies is that it is better to give the government enough rope to hang itself, while the opposition hopes than an erring or inadequate government will be punished by loss of popularity with the electorate.
The Malta experience
The Malta experience has shown, time and again, that when political polarisation builds up a head of steam, democratic maturity evaporates.
As we approach the run-in to the next general election, polarisation is flaring in unexpected bursts, in and out of the House.
At such moments, politicians do not speak to each other. They speak to “the gallery”. And this they do, while they seek to hog as much space as possible in the friendly press or on the airwaves. Once this point is reached, parliamentary democracy is devalued. It is reduced to a backdrop to the polarised political arena.
There is acrimony, even un-parliamentary language. There is evasion by ministers during question time, and urgent parliamentary business is put on hold.
It is at this vulnerable point that democracy is put to the stiffest test.
As ministers begin to give more time to their constituencies than to their ministries, and as Parliament becomes increasingly distracted by the fireworks of polarisation, the administration is left to its own devices,
In this climate, the public interest could equally become prey to bureaucratic incompetence and to predators of all description.
Maltese democracy could be exposed to “a clear and present danger” if the winds of polarisation blow over the Maltese political scene with gale force, as the electoral tussle gathers momentum.
Its bulwark will be the mature, discerning electorate, not the campaigning politicians.
[email protected]