Curiouser and curiouser

The story of the week was the curious story of the Hon. Marlene Farrugia being 'appointed' advisor or aide to her partner, Health Minister Godfrey Farrugia, and her resignation from the post within three days.

The idea that a Ministry could be headed by a couple rather than by a single MP was the most anomalous thing that emanated from the set-up of Joseph Muscat's new government. The details were hazy and what Marlene Farrugia was claiming somehow did not fit in exactly with what the Prime Minister's office was saying.  Comments from the OPM's spokesperson to the press contrasted statements by Farrugia herself, who insisted that it had been the Prime Minister who had assigned her the role of unpaid assistant to the Minister. Clearly, there was some confusion as to whose idea was it in the first place for Farrugia to be assigned a role in her partner's Ministry and what was exactly her role.

She even appeared by the Minister's side during a meeting with the General Workers Union, and then in a subsequent press conference. When quizzed by the press, she said her role was simply intended to lighten the minister's load although she admitted that her role was open to interpretation. The Farrugias were apparently destined to be the government's 'odd couple'! Thankfully, it was not to be.

The whole episode smacked of a lack of seriousness within the administration that had just been elected to power on the promise of good governance, among other things. Her 'resignation' on Wednesday put paid to all the wagging tongues as well as to the pressure that was evident with the press clamouring for a clear definition of Farrugia's role in her partner's ministry.

It seems that Farrugia, in the beginning, gave the impression that she would be at the Minister's side all the time and even standing in for him if circumstances so warrant. Within three days, she gave different interpretations of her role and this did not help matters at all. The story began to reveal aspects that were, as Alice - she of Wonderland fame - would have put it: 'curiouser and curiouser'.

As a good dentist, Farrugia must have heard of the Italian proverb, 'La lingua batte dove il dente duole' - the tongue lashes at wherever the toothache is!

From a human relations point of view, the idea was a non-starter. The job of a minister is a very stressful one and any person with this responsibility must at times look forward to going home for some rest, drinking a cuppa and spending some quality time - a much needed break from the pressures of office.

Having one's partner acting as advisor/aide in the ministry and then going home for a few relaxing hours with the same partner is certainly not on. This was an arrangement that could not possibly work and the Prime Minister must have realised that the deal was doomed.

Thankfully, better counsel prevailed.

* * *

Behind the Farrugia farrago, there must have been the astounding assumption that the relationship between the Farrugias is tiff-less and would remain forever so.

Not so with the relationship between the Prime Minister and yet another Farrugia: his former deputy in the post of Labour leader, Anglu Farrugia. Farrugia was unceremoniously ditched from the post of Deputy Leader by Muscat last December on the pretext of his having been very impolitic when he ascribed a particular judgement of a Magistrate to political motivations.

Few people believed Muscat at the time. The general consensus was that Labour's Deputy Leader had made a veritable mess in a television programme with the PN's spanking new Deputy Leader, Simon Busuttil. Muscat must have concluded that he could not afford to carry Anglu Farrugia through the electoral campaign. Reliable information - that I got to know much later - indicates that the upshot of that infamous debate was that it marked the only time when the gap between Labour and PN substantially narrowed in the survey polls. In the world of crude cut-and-thrust political struggles, Muscat's ruthlessness towards Anglu Farrugia was more than 'justified'.

Anglu Farrugia famously reacted to the harsh and callous treatment that was dished out at him by, amongst other things, publicly declaring that he had no confidence in Muscat.

Since then a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Simon Busuttil is no longer 'spanking new' and Anglu Farrugia is no longer a threat to Labour's success at the polls.

So Joseph Muscat is now making 'peace' it up by nominating Anglu Farrugia as Speaker in the new Parliament following the election. In fact, by the time this article is published, Anglu Farrugia would have become the Speaker in the House of Representatives.

Again, things have taken a turn that cannot but be 'curiouser and curiouser'.

The point is not whether Anglu Farrugia can make a good Speaker. That is still to be seen, although one hopes that he will forget that he was once a policeman with interrogating skills and refrain from continually asking MPs to look at him in the eye when they talk.

The post of Speaker can be a humdrum one during most sittings of the House of Representatives, but can suddenly assume an incredibly huge importance in circumstances that no one can normally foresee, circumstances when there is a flare-up on something or other in the House.

Historically, our Speakers have always risen to the occasion and dealt with these problems maturely, irrespective of the political side to which they belonged - ironically, much unlike the accusations that Anglu Farrugia made against that particular Magistrate... in fact, the number of times when some Speaker's decision inflamed the Opposition to the extent that some it led to a motion of lack of confidence in the Speaker are few and far between. The great majority of Speakers, whether nominated by a Labour or Nationalist majority, never had to face such ignominy.

The Speaker's post is a very important one in our parliamentary democracy and the choice of who is to fill this post has traditionally fallen squarely on the government side. Labour has every right to choose the person who is to occupy this post.

But is it correct for this right to be used by the prime minister to appease a party man who was angered after being brusquely treated by the same prime minister for obvious electoral gain?

The point is whether using the post of Speaker as a peace offering after what can only be described as an internal Labour Party squabble is acceptable in our democracy.

I think that it is not, and that this is the first real and serious black mark of Joseph Muscat's administration.