So the issue of the life of this government has now been tried, tested and determined. Earlier this week we witnessed the votes in Parliament on a money bill which saw Government losing out on the possibility of pushing through its fifth budget as a result of rebellion from one of its backbenchers.

The rest is history, as is that same backbencher's political participation in Parliament. The Prime Minster has now gone to the President of the Republic and recommended that Parliament be dissolved and that the country goes for elections on the 9th March of next year.

There remain a number of interesting issues, or possibly lessons, that one may derive from this legislature. The first among all is the very fact that what was our perceived version of an entrenched, stable democracy exists no more. We have now experienced a situation where our long-established, boasted-of two-party Parliamentary structure, which functioned well for nearly fifty years, may now require a rethink, if not a revamp. This is the second time in the last fifteen years that such events have happened. It is true that the last time round, the reason and motivation was different, as Perit Mintoff had brought the Government down not on a money bill but on a point of political principle and ideology. This time round, the reason behind the fall of Government is not as clear. The goalposts defining the reasoning have been shifted time and time again and they have finally settled on the alleged lack of trust in a minister. I have my doubts on the veracity of this, as to me there were ulterior motivations and I clearly do not see any political ideology backing the declared reason.

We have witnessed with little envy the political difficulties which many of our northern European neighbours have experienced over the last decades since the Second World War but now, we find ourselves in similar situations, if not worse. We have seen Italy with its fifty plus governments since the Second World War, while in the United Kingdom, we have and currently are experiencing a stable coalition government. Here in Malta, however, things are different; our two-party system has been shaken to its core as a result of disagreements within the governing party.

Political parties are elected on a political programme and members of parliament are elected on a political ticket. The Constitution lays down that the term of Government is that of five years for a reason, that of having enough time to implement the electoral promises contained in the political programme which the elected party had professed as implementable within its electoral mandate. There is no doubt that the party in Government is politically and morally obliged to implement its programme.

The question which arises is whether the member of parliament has a corresponding duty to occupy his seat in his or her own person, or as part of the parliamentary group.

Does the seat bring with it the individual right of the parliamentarian to exercise his powers beyond party lines? In practice and to my mind, the answer lies constitutionally somewhere in the middle. Telling a member of Parliament that once elected, he has to follow and toe the party line and that he has now lost his freedom of expression and decision-making is not a credible stand to adopt. The individual, albeit having been elected on the party ticket, carries out his own campaign and represents a number of constituents. His or her election in parliament gives same the right to speak on behalf of the people who elected same; were this not the case, there would be no point behind election to the House of Representatives.

But to what degree is the member of Parliament free to speak his mind and vote in whichever way that member feels like? Here, Constitutionally I would draw the line. Considering the undeniable fact that on one’s own merits alone, without party backing, there is no reasonable prospect that one gets him or herself elected to Parliament, that member owes allegiance to the party ticket on which same was elected. There is a fine balance which has to be skillfully administered by the member of his or her responsibilities towards their constituents and their responsibilities towards the party on whose ticket they were elected.

Members who fail to see this distinction are doing a disservice to their very same constituents. Once a party line on a particular vote is called by the whip, such member may freely express its opinion on the merit in question, but should ultimately fall in line with that party’s vote.

Today, this distinction has been eliminated and this does not augur well for future governments. Once we have witnessed this scenario unfold, it no longer becomes unimaginable for future members to do the same. I will not enter into the merits of why a member may fail to toe the line, but the reality which has been drawn by such member is that one member may dismantle a majority previously enjoyed by the party in Government, thereby making it unstable and ultimately, ungovernable.