This is a turbulent term for Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi. No other Maltese head of government has ever had to deal with so many difficulties arising from within his own party, from MPs who were elected on the same ticket.

So far, Dr Gonzi has always weathered the storm. As soon as a crisis erupts, there is talk of an early election, with the Opposition doing its utmost to force an abrupt end to the legislature. But at the end of the day the government has always survived.

The Labour Party claims that the Nationalist government is clinging to power at all costs, and that the country is suffering the consequences of political instability. In return, the Nationalist Party accuses Labour of having a lust for power, and that all Joseph Muscat wants to achieve is to be Malta’s youngest prime minister – without knowing what to do when he moves to Castille.

In one of his recent speeches, Dr Gonzi made a noteworthy remark that could earn him some points on the political scoreboard.

He said that he prefers having to face the problems with which he has been challenged through the public outbursts of MPs on his own side of the political fence, most notably Franco Debono (which have been picked on by the Opposition), rather than having to tackle the economic woes that many other countries in the eurozone are struggling with because of their bad policies.

It is better, he said, that he is the one who is taking the brunt of the prevailing political scenario, rather than having to see rising unemployment and having to order austerity measures.

What Dr Gonzi said is true. It is unfortunately seen as rhetoric, but when one stops to think how Malta managed to overcome the financial catastrophes that led to the collapse of other nations, it must be said that this feat is remarkable. While half the young people in other countries are without a job and unemployment has reached unprecedented levels, here we talk of 20,000 jobs being created in the last four years – a big achievement in this tiny island of ours.

It would have been very interesting to see how the Labour Party would have coped, had it been in government over the last four years. Perhaps Joseph Muscat would not have had a Franco Debono in his ranks, but I do wonder what he would have done when – at the height of the economic crisis – many factories employing hundreds thought of closing shop.

We know what the Nationalist Party in government did when it came face to face with this situation. Not only did these factories not close down but, once the crisis was over, they ended up employing more people.

We do not know what the Labour Party, had it been in government, would have done – in the same way that we do not know what the Labour Party plans to do if it wins the next election.

***

Last Monday, Nationalist MP Franco Debono used up some of his time during the parliamentary debate on the vote of confidence called by the Prime Minister to lash out at me on a personal level.

I choose not to reply to his allegations except to say that they were serious, dishonest and spiteful.

What I choose to say is this: less than 24 hours later, I received an email from the secretary of Parliament’s Select Committee for the Recodification and the Consolidation of Laws, which is headed by none other than Dr Debono himself.

Through the email, Dr Debono “kindly” invited me to take part in a meeting to discuss the “consolidation of press laws”, which was to take place on Wednesday.

By consolidation of press laws, what Dr Debono means is the harshening of penalties in the libel laws as well as the extension of such laws to cover the internet and most of all bloggers, two of Dr Debono’s crusades in the last few years.

What cheek.

On Monday, he used his parliamentary privilege to hit out at me, not on a professional level, but on a personal one, and then the next day he asks for my opinion on how he would like to see libel laws strengthened.

Isn’t it incredible?

On the one hand, he is safe in the knowledge that what he – and all other MPs – says in Parliament cannot be challenged in a court of law, but then he wants me to share my views on how he should go about proposing changes to the law to increase fines for libel, or perhaps to send journalists to prison as well.

He wants to retain his right to say what he likes in Parliament while at the same time work to tighten libel laws to curtail the freedom of expression of others.

He wants to be able to openly attack non-politicians in the House but then he wants to consolidate his position to threaten journalists with libel, as he has done with me (and I presume others) on several occasions, each time they write something about him.

Is this the democracy in which Franco Debono believes?

What should be debated is not libel laws, but the way MPs should be prevented from abusing their parliamentary privilege to say whatever they like about anyone they like, especially when what they say is not in the national interest or in the public domain.

By the way, I did not go to the meeting.

[email protected]