The President’s speech during the opening of Parliament, with its cheap jibes and partisan slogans, has shocked many people. Saddened and angered by how the speech degraded the office, they believe that it cannot just be allowed to pass without a strong response that expresses their disgust. Some people have even been talking about a boycott of the Community Chest Fund, particularly l-Istrina.

The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Toni Abela, has insinuated that such talk is being led by the Nationalist Party, since these sentiments have also been expressed during public discussions on the PN media. What nonsense! What has been broadcast simply reflects popular sentiment away from the airwaves, in other media, offices and homes.

Like the Office of the President, which distanced itself from the speech, Dr Abela knows this very well. But instead of recognising that the blame for the scandal lies squarely at his leader’s door, he hopes to mix the issue by getting the PN, or at least its supporters, to retaliate in kind.

But there are at least five reasons why that would be the wrong thing to do for anyone who sympathises with the PN and its principles.

Firstly, Malta’s political history shows that Labour is the party of boycotts and slights against Presidents (as with Censu Tabone, for example). The PN is the party with a sense of state, of the dignity of its offices, which transcends individuals. 

We are the party that broke the mould and nominated a political adversary for the Presidency. We wanted to go beyond partisanship. Labour has responded by saying that, for all practical purposes, it sees the Presidency as a partisan plaything. We should stick to our guns and not adopt the Labour line.

Secondly, we should not boycott the Presidency because, although we may have lost the election, we have not lost our capacity for clear-headed thinking. As all our Parliamentary declarations have made clear, we do not blame the victim, which in this case is the Presidency and the reputation of its work for the community. We blame Joseph Muscat, who has tarnished the Presidency.

Thirdly, we should not mount a boycott because, when insulted, we do not retaliate by creating new victims. For us, politics is service. It is not an arena in which we measure our prowess in terms of pride, honour and vendettas. Our honour lies in serving the common good – and seeing the Community Chest Fund flourish serves the common good.

Fourthly, we ought not mount a boycott because we do not wear masks. When we say that the Presidency is above partisan politics, we mean it. When we say that the Community Chest Fund belongs to all of us, as a national community, we mean it. We will leave it to Joseph Muscat to wear the mask of post-partisanship, and to mouth the words of unity, only to drop the mask and swallow the promises when the earliest opportunity for petty point-scoring arises. 

Finally, we ought not mount a boycott because to do so would be a sign of weakness, not strength. It would be seen as a loss of confidence in our principles. Yet these are our strength, our political compass. Our defence of the country’s highest institution puts the searchlight on the real political challenge: the preservation of the autonomy and distinction of the various institutions that represent us, against Muscat’s repeated efforts to undermine any institution that could act to check and balance his power. 

Malta once had another prime minister who held the country’s highest institutions in scorn. By rejecting his methods and remaining true to itself, the PN won that political battle for dignity and rights. And, rest assured, it will win this one too.

Mrs Buttigieg is a Nationalist Member of Parliament