The meeting between Prime Minister Robert Abela and newly elected PN leader Alex Borg at Labour headquarters appeared quite odd and surprising at a time of unparalleled political polarisation in Malta.

During that meeting, Abela invited Borg to work for national unity, while the latter vowed to truly serve the interests of the Maltese.

May all this turn out to be true to their words.

With a strong one-party government and a strong opposition, all options are open: if there is even a minimum of cooperation between the two major parties, we can hope for political stability that will allow crucial reforms to go ahead.

If Abela baulks at the challenges of reforming the country, or if Borg puts his weight behind obstructing change, then Malta will remain trapped in the current dysfunctional political and economic system with the potential to transform itself into a national crisis.

But things will not get better soon, and getting the economy moving and inspiring hope will take years of hard work.

This is where the role that Borg’s PN can play as the main opposition party will be crucial. He can either continue to invest in exploiting popular anger at several unpopular and controversial changes brought about by this Labour administration, hoping that the old political tricks still work, or choose to follow a responsible policy in opposition, knowing that his party can contribute to much-needed stability that could provide Malta with the opportunity to enter a new era.

A greater challenge, though, awaits Prime Minister Abela. He has made a habit of defying expectations and will now have to somehow endeavour to overcome chronic problems in Malta’s public administration, politics and economy.

He must show that he is ready to govern differently, with politics no longer based mainly on heavy spending in exchange for votes, with political, business and media interests locked in a self-serving system.

Abela probably knows that he has very little time to bring about such a needed and expected change in politics, the economy and society, while also meeting challenges on the diplomatic front. His meeting with Borg was notable for the pledge he made to focus on hard work and his call for unity.

If he can lead our country in a spirit of unity, if Alex Borg can contribute to this, then the greatest of structural changes that Malta needs will be that much closer.

                                            Alex Borg’s challenges

As PN leader, Alex Borg is already being regarded as crucial to the party’s success. But in the short time left for the next general election, can he transform himself into a big personality who can dominate his party’s organisation, policy development, and electoral campaign?

If the PN will be attempting to represent the interests of groups within our society, Borg, as the leader now, should have multiple roles. He must endeavour to outline and, in some cases, set his party’s vision and ideology.

Leaders are usually the electoral face that the party depends on to sell the party’s policies and make a connection with the public. Consequently, Alex Borg will have to make sure that he will be taking control of an existing PN party, change its course and, in so doing, revive its fortunes. He will be expected to be the medium through which the party communicates its message to voters.

If, with time, Borg is perceived and seen as competent, the party will be seen as competent. And if and when the PN shifts policy position, it will only be as a result of the leader driving that change. When issues are activated and voters mobilised, it is often because the leader chooses to focus on specific issues or groups.

To arrive at that stage, Borg will have to concentrate power in his own hands and wield it decisively.

These qualities are particularly useful in situations where a party’s ability to move swiftly and decisively may result in great differences in its success in vote seeking or office seeking.

Borg must seek to set and articulate the PN’s policies and priorities, and after experiencing electoral popularity in Gozo, he may be confident that he will have effective, well-defined policies and can enjoy the glow of media approval.

For the moment, Alex Borg might seem an unlikely strong PN leader, possibly competent but an uncharismatic replacement of former successful PN leaders, the likes of Eddie Fenech Adami.

Others might expect him to be weak enough to be pliable, but, despite being an inexperienced leader, he can turn that around by practising humility, seeking knowledge through continuous learning and mentorship, communicating clearly, building a strong, supportive team by delegating effectively, and leading by example with authenticity and emotional intelligence.

Above all, he must focus on team goals over personal ego.

                                           Opposition’s role in legislation and policy

The opposition often has a difficult decision to make in regard to supporting the government on a piece of legislation or working towards a consensus on a policy matter. This could be a statesmanlike approach and in the national interest, but the possibility of negative perception of such stances by civil society and the people can be damaging to the opposition.

In particular, important minority interests that the opposition represents may feel aggrieved or neglected if consensus is too easily reached. This may result in the opposition putting forward an alternative view even if the national interest dictates otherwise. The opposition may have to be careful in how it presents itself in relation to particular nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).

These may have their own disagreements with the government and will seek to engage the opposition in their cause. If the opposition espouses the position of the NGO, this may be misunderstood by others to mean that the opposition agrees with the objectives and methods of action of the NGO. This may be far from the truth and could damage the interests of the opposition in relation to other components of society. Consequently, the opposition must be willing to argue out its position with civil society and pressure groups.

A democracy operates on the basis that there is room for choice all the way up to the selection of the government. Lawfully elected representatives of the people must be able to present and discuss alternative policy options, even if they are not part of the government and do not have an immediate way of making their plans succeed.

This is why we need now more than ever an effective opposition that can be provided constructively without transgressing the constitution or being disloyal to the nation, something that has been accepted by democracies for several centuries.

The acceptance by society of a valid role for the opposition is in itself an important underpinning for the work of the legislature. It is equally important that the government accept a role for the opposition, however small it may be in relation to the government, and that the media give space to the views of the opposition in their reports of the affairs of parliament.

The major challenge for the opposition is its need to be seen as credible in this role. In order to do that, it must be as responsible, respected and united as a political party, and it must create policies that are relevant to the day-to-day lives of people. Parliament provides a good forum for an effective opposition and must be used as such.

The government also has its responsibilities to the opposition.

In the first instance, sufficient resources should be provided for carrying out the work of a ‘loyal opposition’. There must be an adequate level of access to sources of information, including those available to ministers and their civil servants, and for fair advice from parliamentary officials, including the clerk of the House, where such persons are available. There must be some funding for publicity and for the use of the media.

Finally, there must be recognition of the special place of the Leader of the Opposition and front-bench opposition spokespersons. The opposition has to be adequately resourced if its members are to raise questions and suggest methodologies that are well researched. Otherwise, they could end up wasting the time of parliament with bad effects not just for the opposition but also for democracy as a whole.

 

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer

Â