A couple of days back (28th November) I had uploaded a post discussing “the elephant in the room” that would be so conspicuous during the budget debate. The elephant in question is of course Franco Debono’s not too veiled threat to vote against the budget and thus bring about the end of GonziPN’s term in office. Having seen his last hopes of reconciliation fritter away with Simon Busuttil’s volte face on the matter Franco has been in Armageddon mode ever since.
One of the arguments I made in that post referred to the position(s) taken by Joseph Muscat – and this was before his jaw-dropping post-budget assertion that Labour is the best party to put Tonio Fenech’s budget into practice. Muscat’s appropriation of the PN government’s financial plans was to me the final straw that definitely ruled out any vote for Labour (not that there was much hope there but I had left an open door waiting for a very, very convincing argument in that respect – needless to say that argument never turned up). Muscat’s actual position on the budget notwithstanding I had stated:
If Muscat were half the statesman he wishes to be then he would be operating differently. The interest of governance and governability would trump his greed for getting into government. He should not be reinforcing Franco Debono and that parliamentarian’s hara-kiri. At the end of the day the election is months away in any case – budget or no budget. Muscat could use this opportunity to pull the carpet from under Franco’s legs and be in command of his own party’s destiny. His best move would be to instruct two or more of his MPs (how many are necessary) to abstain in the budget vote. The budget would pass, without the vote of labour who would go on record as having voted against.
As far as I know (and I’m not particularly keen on this calling dibs business) this was the first time that this theoretical approach was mentioned in the media (printed or otherwise). Last night though a “Guest Post” was up on the Runs discussing the very idea though it was presented as “A rather bizarre rumour is doing the rounds.” The abstention, according to the rumour, would no longer be from one or two of Muscat’s MPs but Joseph Muscat himself. Guestposterontheruns proceeded to rubbish the idea:
Should this scenario come to pass, Labour would once again show that it has turned inconsistency and lack of principle into an art. How can a prospective prime minister and party leader vote one way while his entire party vote for its antithesis on what is essentially a vote of confidence in this government? How can the entire Opposition vote to bring down the government while its leader votes to keep it in place? How can the party leader himself vote against the party whip?
The anonymous writer – presumably fearful of showing her name lest she loses her day job for having an opinion (you know given these oppressive times we live in) – goes on to explain that “Unlike the case of divorce, a budgetary vote is not, and cannot be, a matter of conscience. There is no free vote on the matter and there cannot be, under any circumstance.” Which might make for quite a convincing argument. In a vacuum. All other things being equal (as Labourites apparently tend to think).
What guestposterontheruns fails to notice is the constitutional underpinning of the original theoretical scenario. While it may be argued that the value of the budgetary vote is a political vote that is not tied to conscience or free votes, its value is grounded in the fact that a budgetary vote is also an implied vote of confidence in government. A budgetary vote therefore is all about the stability of government and governance.
Should Joseph Muscat take up the J’accuse suggestion and use his vote in order to undermine Franco Debono’s efforts to vote against the budget irrespective of its content then Muscat would be acting in order to guarantee the very principle of governmental stability that underpins our constitutional provisions. The message and precedent set would be of extreme importance, not just for the government of the day (whose days are counted anyway) but also for future governments and their MPs. A renegade MP linking a budgetary vote to a personal issue (Austin Gatt) will not be seconded in his actions by the opposition.
This point is valid irrespectively of the inherent contradiction of the Labour party’s political position on the budget itself (we like it, we adopt it but we will vote against it). The arguments made by guestposterontheruns are short-sighted in that they tackle Muscat as the Labour leader within the current electoral campaign and scenario. The theoretical scenario I originally posted is neutral of current events and could be applied to any future scenario where a renegade MP abuses of his position.
That is what the “statesman” business is all about. Constitutionally, the need to establish a clear precedent for our two-party system and that states that renegade MP shenanigans will not be seconded in order to cause unnecessary instability, trumps by far the usual customary rules with regard to budgetary votes (whip, free vote etc).
The “rumour” might after all not turn out to be true (or simply sourced from a careful reader of this blog). I also have my doubts about how much Muscat and his team would understand the true value of the strategy I outlined. Even in short-term political terms it would be quite a winner for Labour. To be seen as not wanting power at all costs, to pull the carpet from under Franco’s feet and to simply wait a few more months (two?) for the government to run its natural course would be a boost for a party still reeling from its mishandling of the early post-budget.
I suspect that the very fact of the danger that Muscat might actually contemplate such a scenario that runs havoc with the PNs electoral plans is what must have prompted guestposterontheruns to write about the “rumour” in the first place. Always if the rumour turns out to be true, that is.
