The opening of Parliament yesterday signalled another step towards the normal administration of the country. It effectively closed off a seven-week period of time during which the country passed through an election campaign and polling day, the formation of the Cabinet, the holding of casual elections to fill up seats vacated by candidates who were elected twice, and the triggering of the gender-corrective mechanism which completed the formation of our Parliament.
An election always brings with it some turbulence, as it is not a normal time. Now that the whole process is over and Parliament will be meeting again on a regular basis - the government has promised the implementation of the whole Labour electoral programme plus what was not enacted in the last legislature which was cut short by a year - it is time for the country to return to its habitual routines.
And the convening of Parliament should immediately provide an opportunity for the country's political leaders to demonstrate that governance extends beyond electoral competition.
Among the first matters that should command their attention are the appointments of a new Chief Justice and a new Auditor General.
Malta cannot continue to rely on temporary arrangements for two of the most important constitutional offices in the country. The prolonged uncertainty surrounding these posts has already gone on for too long. The government and opposition owe it to the country to place these appointments at the top of their agenda and resolve them as quickly as possible.
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Auditor General Charles Deguara have continued to serve beyond the point at which their successors should have been appointed. They have done so out of a sense of duty and responsibility, ensuring that no institutional vacuum was created. The country should be grateful for their service and their willingness to put the national interest first.
But gratitude should not become an excuse for inertia. Both the government and the opposition have the duty to act quickly to resolve an impasse which, towards the end of the last legislature, threatened to create a crisis.
Constitutional offices should not depend indefinitely on the goodwill of incumbents willing to extend their tenure because politicians have failed to fulfil their responsibilities. Continuity is important, but so too is renewal. Institutions function best when succession is orderly, predictable and conducted according to the constitutional framework established for that purpose.
The requirement for a two-thirds parliamentary majority in these appointments exists for a reason. It is intended to encourage consensus and ensure that individuals occupying such sensitive posts enjoy broad confidence across the political spectrum. It was never designed to provide political parties with another arena in which to score points against each other.
Unfortunately, that is precisely what has happened with regard to the appointment of the Chief Justice in the weeks which preceded the election campaign.
What should have remained an internal discussion conducted with discretion and respect evolved into a public spectacle, one for which both government and opposition carry blame. Accusations and counter-accusations entered the public domain, creating the unfortunate impression that the appointment of the head of the judiciary had become little more than another chapter in partisan warfare.
That episode reflects poorly on everyone involved. Names of possible contenders for the post were publicly discussed, with one of them making it to a parliamentary debate which led nowhere as no consensus was reached, and another accusing the Prime Minister of prioritising money and political calculation over judicial independence.
The authority of institutions is not strengthened when appointments are debated through public posturing. On the contrary, public confidence risks being undermined when citizens are led to believe that constitutional offices are bargaining chips in broader political contests.
Yet dwelling on past mistakes serves little purpose.
The election is over. The pressures and calculations associated with campaigning have passed. The government has secured its mandate, while the opposition has had its say before the electorate. The time for political messaging has given way to the responsibility of governing.
Both sides must therefore approach these discussions in good faith and with a genuine willingness to compromise.
It means recognising that the country is bigger than any one party and that functioning institutions are in everyone's interest. It means engaging seriously, avoiding grandstanding, and understanding that the inability to reach agreement carries consequences that extend beyond partisan advantage.
Malta deserves certainty. It deserves institutions that are operating as they should, free from prolonged interim arrangements and the uncertainty they inevitably create.
There will always be political battles to fight. There will always be disagreements on policy, ideology and priorities. Such differences are part of democratic life.
But there should also be moments when the country's leaders rise above partisan considerations and act with a shared sense of purpose.
The appointment of a new Chief Justice and a new Auditor General should be one of those moments.
Parliament's first test in this new legislature is not whether government and opposition can defeat each other. It is whether they can work together when the national interest demands it.
The country has waited long enough.