The one-seat majority the Nationalist Party won in the 2008 election, thanks to a mere 1,500 extra votes, is proving to be more difficult than expected for Lawrence Gonzi to handle.

Right from the beginning of this term, there seemed to be a kind of uneasiness within the PN ranks. Dr Gonzi’s choice of a small Cabinet – initially with just eight ministers and six (later five) parliamentary secretaries – meant that more than half the Members of Parliament elected on the PN’s behalf were backbenchers.

Soon enough, a group of them started making noises in a bid to gain more exposure. There was talk of a rebellion inside the parliamentary group, and this was made public when some MPs went to the media with their complaints and reservations about the way the Prime Minister was dealing with them.

This ultimately pushed the Prime Minister into nominating eight parliamentary assistants to all ministries except for the Foreign Affairs portfolio, and the move seemed to quieten things down.

But, apart from this collective uprising, there have been other situations that have spelt trouble for the Prime Minister. Often it has seemed that he has been held to ransom, and that he has been forced to take decisions, which, in different circumstances, he would not have made.

One-seat majorities are never easy to handle. Just see what happened to Alfred Sant in his brief term as Prime Minister between 1996 and 1998 to see how flimsy they can be.

It is only the second time that the Nationalist Party has had to face such a situation. The first one was in 1987, but those were different times. The PN (and Malta) had just emerged from 16 years of Socialist rule, the last years of which were marred by political violence under a government that was in power in spite of having obtained a minority of votes, and the PN at the time was a united force.

In that term, none of the Nationalist MPs would have dared go against the run of the mill, mostly because it would have meant a political death for the individual. After so much suffering and the pain it took for the PN to regain Castille, any dissent would have meant a total isolation. Josie Muscat, who had gone against the party on a point of principle before the 1987 election, is the perfect example of what I am saying.

Today, the scenario is completely different. It is the Nationalist Party which has been occupying the government seat for a long time – 22 of the last 24 years. And some Nationalist MPs – but not only – do not find it hard to adopt a challenging stand.

The question that comes to mind – but which can never be answered – is whether Eddie Fenech Adami would have treated the same issues and the same people in the way Dr Gonzi has managed them. Would

Dr Fenech Adami have accepted such behaviour? Would he have yielded to the pressure? Would he have allowed such internal

disruptions?

We had Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando going to Parliament with a Private Member’s Bill in favour of divorce. His intentions may have been good, and he probably thought this was the only way that we could finally have a decision on the legalisation or otherwise of divorce. But the way it was done – keeping his party in the dark until he presented the bill – was frowned on by his colleagues, especially those holding more traditional views. They feel that they have now been forced into taking a decision on an important issue that did not form part of the party’s election

programme.

Dr Pullicino Orlando already cost the party dear with his involvement in the Mistra development issue just before the election. If divorce is introduced, he will be remembered as the politician who started the ball rolling. But whether the battle for divorce is won or lost, Dr Pullicino Orlando will be seen as a rebellious type and difficult to keep within rigid structures. What will he come up with next?

The same goes for Jean Pierre Farrugia. First he said he would not vote in favour of the reform in the health sector as proposed. More recently, he was quoted as saying he would back a Labour motion to repeal the honoraria increase that ministers and parliamentary secretaries received.

His action to force a backtrack on the MPs’ honoraria may have earned him the plaudits in some quarters, but he will not be looked at nicely by his colleagues, who see him as bitter and power-hungry, and as someone who tries to spoil the party if he is not invited. His recent stunt at Mater Dei Hospital also exposed a kind of aggressiveness against Health Minister Joe Cassar, already clear during a TV programme late last year.

Jesmond Mugliett, albeit in a less evident way, has also been in the news with his attack on the way the government is administering the energy sector. But the former Transport Minister then ended up voting with the government when it was time for the House of Representatives to decide, last November.

And then there’s John Dalli, who is sticking to his word that he will keep tabs on what is going on in Malta in spite of his appointment as European Commissioner, and seems to be overdoing it in the process.

Mr Dalli has described his appointment as a four-year sentence, one in which he is earning, per month, as much as the MPs’ honoraria is per year (€19,000 or thereabouts). His frequent criticism of the PN and its leader, much to Labour’s delight, render him as someone who has yet to accept that he was beaten by Dr Gonzi in the PN leadership race.

These four – and there are others – are creating uncertainty within the Nationalist Party. Given the one-seat majority enjoyed in Parliament, the dissent shown by the MPs is leaving Dr Gonzi with little room in which to manoeuvre.

[email protected]