Parliament reconvened after the summer recess and it became immediately clear that the political tug-of-war has resumed in earnest. Although the democratic cut and thrust is, no doubt, deemed essential to keep the government on the qui vive, it is equally essential for our politicians to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Opposition should, by all means, be free to monitor the performance of the executive and to act as watchdog of the public interest. But the public interest also demands that the Opposition should have a viable channel for its constructive and positive input. If such a channel existed, it would be possible to define an area where consensus could be reached and practised.

Consensus implies an agreed basis for cooperation. It implies that, in this case, the government and Opposition would come to a meeting of minds, and to work together in pursuit of certain defined objectives. Once agreement is reached, such objectives would be considered as national policy and both sides would be able to claim merit for the results.

In a highly polarised environment such as Malta, politicians pay lip service to consensus by calling for ‘dialogue’. In practice, the end result is a dialogue of the deaf.

It takes two to tango, but it takes one to take the initiative and move the partner to move to the dance floor. In this case, the initiative should have come from the government side.

The executive is responsible for policy and its execution and, if it is really interested in trimming its sails in the interest of consensus, it has to get round to agreeing with the Opposition on a given set of objectives where both sides could work in harmony.

Verbal appeals for consensus lead nowhere unless they take the form of a concrete proposal with positive and attainable objectives. Such objectives have to be acceptable to the Opposition; Agreement implies discussion and mutual accommodation before it is reached.

In the absences of an open and formal government initiative, the first approaches have to be made behind the scenes by bridge-builders. In such an environment, they could establish the areas where the two sides could work together in pursuit of common aims. This could lead to eventual consensus, both sides would be the winners and there would be no losers.

One side or the other may have strong views on a particular topic (e.g. energy or climate change policy) but would otherwise be willing to cooperate all along the line to expedite measures leading to reigniting the national economic engine. They may agree to disagree on the merits and demerits of specific plans for the regeneration of the harbour area, but they could agree to cooperate on most issues that will make Malta a more attractive destination.

If such an agreement could be hammered out, the respective political parties could then proceed to formalise the accord and thereby reduce the area where they will continue to contrast each other and offer their respective alternative policies for electoral approval.

In this way, life would go on with the traditional political gusto, which after all is vital for the democratic health of the Maltese body politic, without impairing our national economic and other interests.

Heaven knows that there is much too much to be done to put the government’s finances right, to give momentum to our ailing economy, to maximise our opportunities in the European Union, and to upgrade the top managerial rungs of our bureaucracy.

In all these areas, debate and contestation are legitimate, indeed desirable, in the interests of transparency, accountability and open government. The wider the agreement between the government and Opposition to harmonise their policies in pursuit of the national interest, the more they will have time to argue on the issues that call for the concentrated attention of both parties.

Logical as all of this may sound, it’s lost in the wash of the ‘dialogue of the deaf’!

More and more electors, possessed of common sense, are asking “Why?”