Over the past weeks we have been inundated with declarations and counter-declarations, sensational revelations and prompt denials, abrasive personalised confrontation and half-baked mediation; theatrics on all fronts, to the point that the whole issue is as clear as mud and consequently most are unable to consider the unfolding of events objectively.

In my view these are some of the pertinent questions we should be asking ourselves: Is my Honourable colleague (professionally speaking) Franco Debono acting in accordance with his constitutional, moral and ethical rights, or has he abused such rights; has/is he acting reasonably and consistently, or is he acting irrationally and inconsistently; has/is he acting in the national interest, or is he acting in pursuance of his own pet issues and aspirations. A calm and objective analysis of the past few weeks, and what they have revealed, should help us reach a logical and objective conclusion, and this will help us all to better understand, appreciate and evaluate the actions of my Honourable colleague, and by consequence the actions taken by others that have been involved, or have involved themselves, in the fracas triggered by my Honourable colleague. This irrespective of whether one is blue, red, green or whatever, and irrespective of what one thinks of government policies and so on.

Constitutionally, my Honourable colleague can exercise his vote in Parliament as he deems fit. There can be no denying that he was elected on the PN ticket and he would not have been elected without that ticket (or that of the PL if he was a PL candidate). He was elected in a team led by a democratically elected PN leader that he implicitly acknowledged and accepted by the mere fact that he campaigned and contested on the PN ticket. By the same token, he accepted and acknowledged the PN leader as the candidate for the Premiership. He was elected by a PN electorate, which recognised and voted for Lawrence Gonzi as the leader of the PN with the aim of the latter becoming Prime Minister for a full term. It could be said that some of that electorate agree with my Honourable colleague’s recent actions, but it would be wishful thinking to imagine that these are more than a very small minority, and history and all indications show that the massive majority of those who elected my Honourable colleague do not agree with his recent actions, and they accordingly feel that he is abusing their trust and their vote. Yet, constitutionally, my Honourable colleague can vote as he pleases in Parliament, and he would not be abusing his constitutional rights if he votes to bring down the government or if he abstains. However, would such actions be morally and ethically correct in the light of the above? AD’s Michael Briguglio opined that “a government should not collapse because of a Cabinet reshuffle or because an MP believes he should be made minister”, while Lino Spiteri opined that MPs owed their allegiance to their constituents, who elected them in line with the party ticket they contested on. Ultimately, if my Honourable colleague brings down the government or abstains, will he be acting honourably?

My Honourable colleague has stated that he will support anyone but the Prime Minister to lead the government, and if the Prime Minister does not resign there would be no option but to call an election. He is entitled to make such a statement, but is such a statement reasonable, and is it consistent with facts and with his actions to date? Besides, what he wrote in his thesis and what he has also declared in various fora since being elected to Parliament, it is a fact that the Prime Minister has been elected democratically at party level, so by implication the PN electorate support him as PN leader. They have recently reiterated their support through the various organs of the party less the general council, so far, but it would be wishful thinking to imagine that the same result will not ensue at general council level. My Honourable colleague said that he will ignore such expression of support, implying that he has no respect for the time honoured internal structures that have elected all PN leaders since the party’s inception. He justifies this position by saying that political parties remain unregulated and, accordingly, he could not know what financial interests are at play behind the scenes. Historically, it does not appear that he has ever questioned the status and/or validity of such party structures, and it would also appear that he has participated actively therein as an MP and perhaps also before his election to Parliament. He has also stated that he still considered himself a Nationalist. Is that reasonable and consistent behaviour or is it an ‘a la carte’ approach? On a national level, in 2008 the electorate democratically gave the PN the largest number of votes, and in accordance with the highest law of the land the PN leader was asked to lead the government as prime minister. It should logically follow that it is only the PN and/or the national electorate that can remove that support. And until the Prime Minister retains that support it is reasonable to assume that it is only the Prime Minister that can call an election, whether early or at term. Is that an illogical or unreasonable assumption, or is it consistent with accepted practice in every parliamentary democracy in the world? And if it is, who is acting honourably?

One of the justifications my Honourable colleague has cited for his post-reshuffle actions are that the Prime Minister had turned government into an oligarchy by retaining the same group of people in Cabinet, despite some of them, in his view, having failed to perform. He has also stated that Lawrence Gonzi is a Prime Minister and not a god. In every parliamentary democracy in the world it is accepted constitutional practice that the prime minister, and the prime minister alone, exercises full discretion in the choice of his Cabinet, and in any periodical changes, removals and elevations therein. It is also accepted practice the world over that within the Cabinet the prime minister will have a so-called ‘inner Cabinet’ made up of a select group of Cabinet members, and that he will also have a team of unelected advisers with the aim of receiving objective advice untainted by electoral pressures. This is a state of fact the world over, so is it reasonable to conclude that all parliamentary democracies in the world are oligarchies, and all prime ministers of such democracies are gods? Is that a reasonable conclusion? Historically and purely factually, Lawrence Gonzi is possibly the prime minister who holds the record of not giving cabinet posts to the highest number of previous cabinet members, despite their re-election, and he has also elevated quite a number of previously backbench MPs to ministerial and/or parliamentary secretarial level. Is it reasonable to conclude that through these actions he was acting like an oligarch and/or a god, or was he executing his constitutionally accepted role? Who is acting honourably?

My Honourable colleague has stated that he is not doing what he is doing because of ambition. He stated that he was a rising star in the party, that he was brilliant since he was young, and that what he is doing was a sacrifice. Hard facts show that he decided to ditch the government straight after the Prime Minister announced the Cabinet reshuffle that left my Honourable colleague out of cabinet. No extraordinary verbal gymnastics can take away that simple fact. Dr Beppe Fenech Adami has also revealed that my Honourable colleague had approached him with a view to seeking his support to effectively oust the PN leader, to elect my Honourable colleague as the new PN leader and by consequence prime minister, with the trade off being the Justice ministry in favour of Dr Beppe Fenech Adami. Anyone who knows Dr Fenech Adami will vouch for his character and honesty, so my Honourable colleague’s subsequent denial may be questionable. Logic would indicate that Dr Fenech Adami does not need to lie about these things. Also objectively revealing was my Honourable colleague’s questionable reaction to the collaboration request he received from the newly appointed Justice Minister. Are the above consistent with my Honourable colleague’s assertion that he was/is not acting out of ambition? Is this the honourable way to act? Moreover, is it honourable to speak so highly of oneself and to seek sympathy? Is this indicative of a truly rising star, or is it indicative of other disturbing traits?

Dr Samuel Jackson, in his Dictionary of the English Language (1755) defined ‘honourable’ as ‘nobility of soul, magnanimity and a scorn of meanness’. My Honourable colleague claims that he is doing what he is doing as a sacrifice and to strengthen democracy. Noble reasons indeed, and he certainly has a point on a good number of the issues he raised, when one considers just issues in a detached manner, but are those reasons genuine? Does one strengthen democracy by ousting a democratically elected PN leader and prime minister because he exercised his constitutional powers in a manner that was not to the liking of my Honourable colleague? Is one furthering democracy by questioning the time honoured and accepted constitutional practice that affords the prime minister absolute discretion in matters pertaining to Cabinet appointments? Is democracy only strengthened if my Honourable colleague’s pet projects and aspirations are fulfilled? Where is the nobility of soul in that? Is one being magnanimous when he mercilessly attacks a fellow MP, even when such MP is indisposed due to ill health? Is that a generous, understanding and tolerant approach one would expect from a magnanimous person? Does it indicate a scorn of meanness? Does it indicate a passion to serve, or does it rather indicate a cynical pursuit of one’s own agenda at all costs, with the aim of securing a reward for ones self-proclaimed brilliance and capabilities?

My Honourable colleague has advocated numerous issues, most of which have merit and are also intrinsically linked to his line of work. Nothing wrong in that! Yet history has shown that genuine, beneficial and lasting change and progress, and in particular constitutional change, is achieved by leaders that act ‘seriously’ and ‘steadily’, not superficially, forcefully and/or by coercion. In truth this applies to every sphere of life. Three recognised and acknowledged local political exponents of this time honoured tradition are three revered former presidents of our country, Censu Tabone, Guido de Marco and Eddie Fenech Adami. The three of them have contributed tremendously to lasting change and progress through their policies, and people are grateful for this across the board. Coincidentally, all three are former St. Aloysius College pupils, and they have certainly honoured its motto ‘Serio et Constanter’, ‘Seriously and Steadily’. They will be forever remembered as truly honourable. Yet, can it be assumed that all Honourable persons are honourable indeed?