The bombshell that went unnoticed

The week that ended yesterday saw the resumption of normal political activity with the inauguration of the new parliament building.

Maybe there were very few who bothered to watch the ceremony either by being present physically or on TV. The ceremony was in fact carried out amid the general absence of interest by the public at large.

The media accepted the presence and the speech by the President as if it were a matter of course, which it is not. The relations between the President and the House are fragile and regulated by a strict protocol, as happens at the Opening of a Legislature with the President reading out the government-written speech.

The last time this happened, in 2013, controversy was created because parts of the speech written by the government were universally felt, probably by the President himself, to be too partisan. President George Abela later said it would be preferable if the speech is actually written by the President himself.

That is wrong constitutionally. The President reads the speech written by the government.

The inauguration of the new parliament building was not a full State occasion, and in fact, the speech was held outside, not inside. The President thus felt free to read out what her thoughts were without any reference to the government.

Her mention of the asylum seekers problem was thus honourable and uplifting but not government policy. A President must not be part of the government, but then a President must not be over and above the government.

When later the President and the Archbishop were invited to tour the Chamber, the archbishop, maybe as a joke, sat on one of the chairs. I do not claim to be a lip-reader but I thought that Prime Minister Muscat, with a smile to allay the point, could have remarked to the archbishop that he could be facing a Breach of Privilege charge for sitting on a chair. The Chamber’s precincts are inviolable.

I do not know about others, but I was quite surprised by the Chamber. I have not been in there but my first impression was that of a school class with benches.

I have been thinking about this reaction. Could it be because the Chamber is small and the MPs cramped? Could it be because the floor is flat?

We have the traditional image of a Parliament mostly with old baroque structures such as the House of Commons, the Italian Parliament etc. However there are more modern and avantgarde parliaments, such as the Bundestag, where the seating arrangement and the flooring resemble Piano’s one but of course the space is much larger. And in the Bundestag, as elsewhere, people making a speech go up to the rostrum. Maybe in time our MPs will get used to it.

Certainly the MPs do not seem to have made the mental shift from the old Parliament to the new. Maybe not many have been watching the new much improved broadcasts of the House sitting but they offer riveting viewing.

Today, one can watch the House sitting in very clear HD with many additions, such as the name of the speaker and the subject matter being discussed.

But the MPs themselves seem not to have noticed the change. They still behave much as they used to behave in the old Parliament where there were no intrusive cameras.

On Wednesday, for instance, as Leo Brincat was speaking, just behind him one could see Stefan Buontempo chatting away to Owen Bonnici. I am sure the conversation must have been disturbing Mr Brincat because the seats are nearer now and it looked highly disrespectful. Other MPs were fussing with their smartphones or working on a laptop. Even that was rather disrespectful.

When the speaker was from the Opposition (Jason Azzopardi), one could also see two or three behind him exchanging comments.

MPs must now remember that when the MP in front of them is speaking, whatever they are doing can be seen on TV.

The Chamber is a tight squeeze. Behind Dr Azzopardi, Carm Mifsud Bonnici found it difficult to get out (he is the grandson of Il-Gross after all) and he had to get Tonio Fenech to swivel around so he could get out.

But the real unnoticed news of the week did not take place in the House but elsewhere – at the PN’s headquarters.

I would have gone along and accepted as truth the version that has been put out by the media, that Giovanna Debono’s enforced resignation brought with it the decision that Chris Said ‘focuses’ on Gozo to help the party recover lost votes were it not for the simple fact that two or three days before this happened, I learnt that Dr Said was to be removed from his post.

One has to marvel at the sleight of hand involved. Sometimes the most obvious events take place under a very public gaze but the significance is hidden from most.

Dr Said has been the architect of the PN resurgence, as an organisation and also as a party. Witness to this is the article he penned for the Sunday Times two weeks ago in which he listed achievements attained. There was nothing in that article to foresee the end of his tenure, or that he would be moving sideways. On the contrary, that article hinted at his own contribution to the party’s resurrection.

The secretary general of a party is not the party’s accountant/manager – today that is the CEO’s job. Going back to the times when Lawrence Gonzi if not Austin Gatt were secretaries of the party, the secretary has a high-profile and political role inside the party, even though the two deputy leaders help out with that role.

We will probably never know what caused this decision, this bombshell. Considering every- thing, it is amazing how public opinion did not understand what happened and went along with the very artificial explanation put out by the party.

There are issues, then, regarding Dr Said’s stepping into Ms Debono’s shoes as Shadow Minister for Gozo and people conversant with politics in Gozo would understand this immediately.

On the other hand, I am speculating here, getting a different Secretary General may have been far more important than solving the Gozo issue.

Simon Busuttil has been uncharacteristically silent this past week, except to say that this week was one of the hardest for him. Again, many thought he was referring to the Giovanna case, but I beg to doubt.

To go back to the euphoric article penned by Dr Said in the Sunday Times, the euphoria was rather overstated. It is as if Ed Miliband rejoiced that Labour had increased its share (it did) without referring to the sound beating it took at the polls. PN did increase its support (although one must heavily qualify that statement), but the road ahead is a harder climb.

To take such decisions as he took last week shows Dr Busuttil is far from being a pushover. On the contrary, he is becoming daily hardened by his role and understands that a leader has to take highly unpopular decisions.

To reorganize the party’s finances, and its media empire (all work done by Dr Said though still unfinished) is important, but even more important (and with less than three years to run, time is running out) is mapping out the party’s stand on general and particular lines.

Many do not understand this. A party in Opposition does not have too much time. Nor are its options that varied: it cannot content itself with purely opposing anything the government does, or running down the ruling party’s top layers.

The PN has to come to terms with what and where it went wrong. It has to understand where it stands as regards the social issues, after allowing Labour to steal those clothes in the divorce and single-sex issues. And it must come up with its own election planks. As I said, there’s not enough time.

As for Dr Said, it was on his watch that the party failed to recoup votes lost at the general election and, on the contrary, continued losing. The battle for Gozo could prove to be a very daunting task.