Structure and hierarchy

I can understand why a number of people still admire Franco Debono's stance for "breaking the ranks" and "going outside the norm". But while I understand the aura of the "I'm a Rebellion" mentality, especially from people who like Franco believe that they are always 100% right and the rest of society is always wrong, I question what is the democratic structure these people are advocating for our country.

What clearly happened here is that a Member of Parliament believed that because he is intelligent and his proposals made sense, not only should these proposals and reforms be implemented, but that he should be the Minister to implement them. Maybe because after getting "Excellent" and "Keep it up" in all those school reports, he needed another "Excellent" for his proposals. No, for him it's not enough that he is listened to and others implement what he proposes. As he told the new Justice Minister Chris Said, he's "nobody's little child" and he "deserves merit for having made them". So he was never going to accept joining him to see them through. For goodness' sake even journalists had told him he was best fit for Justice Minister, he told us in his press conference. His aim therefore was not the implementation of these "more-important-than-the-economy" proposals. His aim was the teacher's star in his life's project book.

Were we to subscribe to this political structure, that whenever an individual within the Party makes a proposal, the Prime Minister should either implement it or resign, then there is no point for hierarchy within the Party, no point for electing a Prime Minister, and no point for discussions. In this anarchical structure, if the MP feels his proposals are right, they must be implemented. And if someone questions them, there's his Form 2 report to prove he has been taking things seriously since he was 12, so much that he got better marks than the Opposition Leader.

Now in a country where the Opposition is void of any substance, I do understand the backbenchers' inclination to take up the Opposition's role in questioning the Government and being critical. But I beg to differ with the way Franco has been doing it. In a Party, there's a hierarchy, and you can't just decide that because you 'feel' you are right, or you 'believe' you are right, than you are absolutely right. You are duty-bound to make your proposals and constructive criticism like everyone else, but you are not the one to take the final decision. There are people elected to take that decision after having heard everyone's views. At a higher position than yours, a position which does not depend on academic certificates. And everyone must accept that the final decision can never include everyone's proposals and views. When it so happens that the final decision does not match what you wanted or believed was right, in my opinion you have three options:

- either accept that decision as a collective decision in which the collective, having a wider picture than the individual alone can ever have, is a better forum for the decision to be taken - maybe also accepting that you are not perfect and that possibly you could have been wrong;

- accept that decision, waiting to for the opportunity to show that you were right, so that you can persuade the rest about it, and be glad that you managed to reach your aim through persuasion and not through blackmail;

- or resign from that collective group, convinced that your view is better than theirs and you can never live in harmony with that decision.

I believe that yes, there may be issues for which the MP is justified not to accept his Party's decision, but as Lino Spiteri said in an interview last Saturday: "The issue of what an MP should do is clear to me. The MP is elected on the Party's ticket. Who doesn't agree with the Government, should resign himself." ("Jiena il-kwistjoni ta' x'għandu jagħmel MP hija ċara għalija. Il-Membru Parlamentari jitla' mhux fuq is-saħħa tiegħu nnifsu, jitla' fuq it-ticket tal-Partit. Min ma jaqbilx mal-Gvern, għandu jirriżenja.")

And the issues at stake here: ‎whether Justice and Home Affairs should be under the same Minister, and whether that Minister should be the guy who has been pointing this out or someone else, are not issues so fundamental that one is justified in bringing the Government down. There needs to be a sense of proportion. Even though Franco declared that in his view these issues are more important than the economy. I think they are not, and I was happy to note that even AD, the green party, agree that they aren't.

After all, even the rebellious slogan "Power to the People" advocates power to the collective, and not to an individual. And if there's anyone who is making himself god in this whole saga, who thinks that his ego is bigger than the collective, it is Franco and not the Prime Minister.