An unbecoming House of Representatives

MPs shouting, jeering and heckling in Malta’s parliament is alienating the public, and the majority want the coarse behaviour to stop. When will we see an end to the chaos that accompanies parliamentary debates, most notably during question time or whenever a controversial Bill or ministerial statement crops up?

The parliamentary sitting of 24 February perhaps illustrated how parliamentary ethics and standards within our House of Representatives, supposedly the most important and highest state institution, are at their lowest ebb.

What transpired in the House was yet another singular act of dishonourable parliamentary vulgarity in a long chronicle of gross disrespect exercised against the people of Malta.

It was the first sitting following the theft of 200kg of cannabis resin from Safi AFM Barracks a day before. It was an afternoon characterised by no less than five suspensions ordered by the Speaker, interspersed with unparliamentary language and personal insults, only for the debate to be postponed to the following day.

It was nothing but parliamentary petulance, not simply a display of outrage and childish petulance, but a cancerous recurrence in the body politic of the country that continues to shape the distrusting style of governance and decision-making by our MPs.

It wasn’t a one-off incident. For, lest we forget, parliamentary misconduct involving government and Opposition is nothing new to Malta.

That descent into chaos was just one reason why the public, tired of such Punch and Judy shows, is put off politics. The gradual coarsening of parliamentary debate is having a seriously detrimental effect on our politics. Not only is it limiting the potential for considered, detailed and constructive discussion, but it is also alienating to the public and disrespectful to members.

Parliament is out of step with the public. Its arcane debating traditions have created a combative and hostile environment in which bullying and misogyny are rife.

During more than one session, jeering and booing are common reactions from the back bench in the House, as are meticulously crafted put-downs. It takes quite a bit to be asked to withdraw a remark or some pungent insult.

Ducking question time doesn’t help much either. When, in the February sitting referred to above, Minister Byron Camilleri tried to avoid the ritual in connection with the drug heist and a preceding string of controversies and scandals, Opposition parliamentarians brought cardboard cut-outs of him into parliament, with various disparaging slogans underneath to hurl abuse at.

The colourful insult is something of an art in Maltese politics, with PN MP Karol Aquilina perhaps championing that art by attributing to the Speaker an inability to think and restore order in the House.

With ill-tempered shouting matches and name-calling, our House has witnessed its own rancour and off-colour personality battles, often attributed to party polarisation or the growing distinct policy preferences of partisan actors.

I don’t need to list the bad behaviour because I believe all MPs are aware of it and know how to conduct themselves appropriately. Thanks to parliament TV, our MPs, who enjoy the authority to govern us based on free and fair elections, can be seen and heard locally during legislative sessions barking and crowing at each other with utter disrespect in the chamber. What is more, they act in total defiance of parliamentary decorum and the civilised political behaviour that the inheritance from Westminster demands of its practitioners.

Yet is their incivility elite- or mass-driven? Is it the case that more uncivil MPs cause the public to grow more jaded? Or, does a more polarised electorate simply choose representatives that reflect their animus? Of course, the mass media plays an important role in colouring political discourse.

To be sure, temper, like a sense of humour, has its place in serious debate in the democratic process. But the freedom enjoyed by our MPs only gives them the authority and licence to speak in the public interest and not in their private interest.

When vilification becomes an accepted form of political debate and harsh personal attacks upon one another’s character drown out the quiet logic of serious debate, surely that is unworthy of our representative institution. All MPs must resolve to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end. There has been enough of it.

It does not have to be like this. A mature democracy such as ours should exhibit a more mature and respectful form of debate, as parliaments from many other countries already do. We need a process of decision-making that promotes discussion, collaboration and inclusive outcomes, not one that resembles a playground.

Now, more than ever, an urgent need is felt to uphold decorum in parliament and avoid insults, slander and politicisation of every issue. There is a dire need for unity and accountability.

Our House of Representatives should be an honourable chamber for debating matters of public interest. It should not be a place for shouting matches, hurling insults or spreading slander. Our MPs must serve as a bulwark of national unity, not as agents of division among the people. They should put an immediate stop to politicising every issue and refrain from prioritising only their party or group. Most of them, from both sides, are still struggling to abandon old habits.

It is time we caught up, and we must ponder the deplorable pattern of unruly behaviour that has marked parliamentary sittings over the last years and turn it into an opportunity to modernise our dysfunctional parliament.