Disagreement on standards? Not a good omen

Perhaps I am just the eternal grouch, but I never did get the need to celebrate a new year, just as if the stroke of midnight had brought with it a national lottery win. Hugging and kissing and jumping in a frenzy as the old year is rung out? I don’t want to be all gloomy and dark. Just realistic.

If there is one thing I detest it is the fear of the unknown. And 2023 brings just that. Some of it could be a cruel surprise that changes our life in an irreversible way. Spare me the €200-a-head New Year’s bash. A bad hangover these days is an insurmountable challenge. And it’s not just age, which brings with it a sense of trepidation and panic... it’s another year in which things and people are not what they used to be, in which war still looms in Europe, and in which nothing is certain or safe, where inflation still stands to hit us like a tsunami, and in which we get to understand how fragile people and life are.

A lacklustre season of news throughout the Christmas holidays, apart from the obits for the great and good, as well as some debate on the ‘abortion’ issue, still brings with it a political climate that is seemingly sanitised and overshadowed by a general drift to avoid hot issues, and in greater part, a general acquiescence to every government decision.

Watching the news local and international, as every news junkie does, the dozen and more voting sessions for a United States speaker brings to the mind the ‘clash’ or dispute between Opposition leader Bernard Grech and Prime Minister Robert Abela over the choice of former Chief Justice Joe Azzopardi as Standards Commissioner.

Azzopardi is Abela’s choice for Standards Commissioner and if things move as they should, he is poised to replace George Hyzler, a former PN junior minister, who gave the role a good example to match before he was kicked upstairs to the European Court of Auditors.

Robert Abela has argued that there was “agreement” between himself and Bernard Grech on Azzopardi. Grech vehemently denies that there was an agreement. In fact, the PN had objective to Azzopardi from the start because they considered him unfit for purpose in this role, particulary when it comes to the necessary energy and drive required for Standards Commissioner.

The PN’s objection to Azzopardi goes beyond his work ethic, but more to do with someone whom they think will not rock the boat as Standards Commissioner. And they need someone to shake the system in that office. The PN wanted Joseph Zammit McKeon, whom Abela refused, and instead proposed for Ombudsman. The PN said ‘sure’, but not as some swap candidate to have Azzopardi installed as Standards Commissioner.

And yet it seems Abela is adamant that his choice will be the final decision. And so determined is he, that he has pushed through an amendment bill (historically so soon after the first tenure of the Standards Commissioner) that will unlock a deadlock when such positions are not agreed to by consensus.

Unfortunately, it is a decision that does away with the idea of compromise and could raise questions about finding common ground on what is such an important role.

It also reveals more about Abela, as a single-minded, unwavering, and determined kind of prime minister, ready to take up a fight when necessary. These are qualities that when combined could serve him well in a battle, but applied at the wrong moment, could be just an act of overt forcefulness – risking he become some kind of martinet. Is this the kind of role in which the government wants to steamroll with its choice? In a political reality in which few watchdogs can carry out an effective scrutiny of politicians’ actions, why should the government not seek consensus on this important role for the country’s democracy? There would be only some obvious reason...

That both sides cannot come to a common stand to agree on this role reveals a disposition that stands to be marked by more resentment and confrontation. Not necessarily a good omen, or maybe a return to form for politics. So the year kicks off with all its unknowns, more of the same, and still with many problems bubbling under the surface and waiting to show up.

When they do, there will be two scenarios: the first, an attempt to create a diversion and smokescreen, and most likely a second, the attempt to blow up and debate the setback. This is where the press has to jump in and play its role.