We have this particular situation in Malta.

The Labour Party accuses the Nationalist Party of being split, of being divided on several issues, including its own leader. Every time there is a hint that some PN MP or official is against this matter or the other, pro-Labour media guns hit out at what it describes as a party in disarray.

On the other hand, the Nationalist Party says that Joseph Muscat is running a dictatorship within his own fold, with no-one daring to contradict the great leader for fear of being ostracised. No Labour MP or official has ever been caught, in public, saying something that goes against what Joseph Muscat dictates.

There is truth to both claims, and the question is whether it is better to have a party where ideas are discussed, arguments ensue and a common position later agreed upon, or to have a party where a decision is made at the top and the rest have to abide by it, whether they like it or not.

The answer to this, in a democratic society, is obviously the first. Organisations who are open to debate have a healthier approach to life in general, in this particular case politics.

Of course, there is a limit to how far such a discussion could go on. There are always deadlines, and one way or the other a decision has to finally be taken. What could be dangerous in these situations is when the bad feelings of the losing side or sides fester, possibly also leading to personal issues.

The PN, in this regard, must be careful so as not to allow its different factions to work against each other to such an extent that there is more harm than good. A healthy debate is important, but chapters should be closed as otherwise lingering mistrust could lead to a downfall.

Labour’s situation is more peculiar, and close to being dictatorial. Labour hides behind the word unity, saying that one and all are behind Joseph Muscat – and by Joseph Muscat we mean the Prime Minister and his closest allies at Castille, whose stranglehold on the party and government is supreme.

No one within the Labour machinery is free to go against what is decided. It is hard to imagine that every Labour MP and official is always behind the PM, and yet there is no indication of any dissent. This is because everyone is afraid of the consequences of speaking up, publicly, against what Joseph Muscat decides or does.

Some will claim that this state of affairs has led Labour to win two elections in a row with a massive margin. Yes, that’s true, but on the other hand it is not healthy to have a dictatorship, one in which no-one feels comfortable enough to even hint at some kind of disagreement.

This seems to be the situation in Labour. Take the examples of George Vella and Deborah Schembri. They spoke out against a position taken by the government – on embryo freezing – only now that they are no longer MPs. They would not have been ready to go so far if they still had a seat in the House of Representatives.