When political parties and their leaders speak about how they view the present and the future, and how they would like them to be, inevitably we get beautiful words and statements. It is difficult to disagree with them. Indeed one can only conclude that what they have to say makes a lot of sense. The problem is that matters then remain blocked at the stage of beautiful statements.

So they remain up in the air. With the passage of time, words which initially meant one thing, come to mean something else. Some people claim that political action requires ambiguity and vague commitments in order to stay viable. But if so, there then exists no reliable measure by which to judge whether political action is being effective in what it prospects and achieves.

My belief is that public investments do provide such a measure: it records what a party, whether in government or in opposition, promises to devote to investment in crucial areas of national affairs and that it shows itself ready to do so, even at the expense of consumption; and then of course, it shows as well the extent to which such promises are implemented. Often, consumption priorities override all other statements of vision.

THE RAW AND THE COOKED

In the polarised world that we live in today - and not only here: just consider what's going on in the US - a very easy method is available by which to recognise in which direction the people around you lean. In Maltese, there exist quite a number of expressions which serve to describe this: like when one refers to a choice between things being raw or overcooked; or between a glass that's half full rather than half empty.

Claims have been made that there's nothing wrong with a situation where opinion is polarised. This ensures that no one view ends up being considered by all as sacred and supreme: which crimps liberty. Polarisation always was a useful factor in ensuring that tyranny is prevented from taking root. But it gives rise to another problem: in a polarised situation, tyranny is also generated within competing political formations.

COALITIONS

In discussions about the difficulties that governmental coalitions face in parliamentary systems, the focus is mostly on the tensions that emeerge between the parties forming part of a coalition. Problems arising between them sap the government's integrity and risk its collapse.

However another aspect of this tension cannot be ignored. While the parties in government have to arrive at compromises between them in order to stay put, these also create different kinds of strains among the members of the political parties involved. If members feel that their party has "given up" too much in accepting the claims of the other parties which are members of the coalition - or if they feel that with the decisions that are being taken by the coalition, their party is faring worst with public opinion, one can rest assured that party's members and leaders will soon become restive. It won't be easy to pacify them. If to do so, the need arises to revive arguments that have already been cleared with the other parties in the coalition, the situation could really become a delicate one. The risk grows that both within the party and in its dealings with the other parties, new disagreements will erupt.