The government has pledged that it is committed to work closely with the opposition, and yet the Malta Labour Party has said that the government is not following its own instructions.

Speaking in Parliament and elsewhere, and writing in newspapers, Labour MPs as well as opinion-writers who lean towards the MLP have repeatedly claimed that the government is not sticking to its commitment of involving the opposition more in the decision-making process.

As a main example, they mention the government’s decision for Malta to join the Partnership for Peace programme. Malta had already become a member in 1995, was pulled out when Labour was elected to government in 1996, and now it has joined again. The MLP has accused the government of not mentioning the PfP in its electoral programme and that the decision to re-join was taken without consultation.

The government defends itself by saying that it needed to make a quick decision in time for an application to be submitted to the European Atlantic Partnership Council, and since Parliament had not yet been convened, it opted to go ahead on its own.

For its part, Labour insists that the government should not have made such an important step without debating the issue with the opposition.

While, on the one hand, the MLP is wrong in thinking that, since the government enjoys a slim relative majority, the opposition has some right to fully participate in any government decision, on the other hand the government cannot ignore the opposition as if it was not there. If it really wants to cooperate with the opposition, then the government should be the first to go down that road.

In the speech outlining the government’s plans for the current legislature during the opening of Parliament last week, President Eddie Fenech Adami said that “it is a given that the principles of good governance must be adhered to” and that the government “will carry on with the process of widespread consultation”.

Consultation should not only be at Malta Council for Economic and Social Development level, but also with the opposition, especially on matters of national importance.

In the election campaign, the MLP accused the government on several times of what it said was “bad governance”, and these claims have continued after the election too. On most occasions, the MLP was referring to projects that cost more than originally estimated and took longer to complete than they should have, but it is clear that the MLP was also pointing fingers at the way it believed the government was bulldozing its way in many sectors.

What is sure is that the two sides must work more closely, especially in Parliament, and yet even here there already are differences that need to be ironed out. For one thing, Parliament has reconvened in a set-up that must be deemed as temporary, in the sense that although a Speaker of the House has been appointed, he may be asked to resign if the two sides reach an agreement that covers other aspects, including pairing.

Discussions have been put on hold until the Malta Labour Party elects a new leader. The MLP has rightly asked for more time until it resolves it internal issues and the government has, rightly so too, agreed to wait. These talks must however continue once the MLP leadership contest is over, and a decision must be taken as quickly as possible.

By cooperating more with each other, the government and the opposition would be giving a positive signal in a highly-polarised Malta.