Marlene Farrugia and World War Z

I'm not quite sure if there is a biological link, though I am told there cannot be. But I have a feeling that Marlene Farrugia - who used to be the wife of the former dissident PN backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando - may have infected herself with her former husband's rebellious traits.

The opinions she espouses in her speeches and interviews, as was the case with Jeffrey and Franco Debono, most of the time make a lot of sense but the root for her 'subversive' approach is not to be found in some noble, altruistic source.

They are the fruit of frustration and the seed, I believe, of her disloyalty is to be found in her political alienation.

Having abundant energy and being a backbencher do not go well together.

To start with, Marlene Farrugia is a dentist by profession, a property developer by choice and to put it very simply, frustrated at not having been allowed to become a minister  - more importantly, having had to step down as a voluntary consultant to her partner, Godfrey Farrugia, the health minister.

Had she been made a minister she would not have courted as much controversy.

We all know that when Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Franco Debono raised their own issues about Lawrence Gonzi, it was fuelled by their respective treatment at the hands of the spin-doctors.

They were incensed at the way the Office of the Prime Minister directed a war of attrition against them.

This time round, there is a directive from the Labour Party not to irk Marlene Farrugia. So I hope no one minds if I take a different tack to their position.

That attitude probably finds its root in a certain feeling of invincibility as a result of a nine-seat majority. Secondly, it's also because they know that Marlene Farrugia is, when it comes down to it, seeking some kind of response... and the best thing to do in that case is to simply not engage.

They also argue that there can only be one minister - not two - from that household.

Rumour has it that the Prime Minister asked them who would like to be minister... which is rather silly, if you ask me.

Unlike Gonzi, Muscat knows he cannot afford to give Farrugia too much importance, and he doesn't want to go down the road Gonzi went with both Debono and JPO.

However there is one problem that cannot go away. Marlene Farrugia's future is linked to the future of her partner Godfrey Farrugia.

Now, many people talk of a well-meaning Godfrey Farrugia and argue that he is completely dedicated to the health sector. But others suggest that he is not up to the job and that the solutions are so complex and the lobbies so demanding, that Farrugia is not the right man for the job.

Which brings us to the question: why did Muscat appoint Farrugia as minister in the first place?

The very first mistake was appointing people according to their numerical standing in the election. Farrugia, who was never a party boy, was elected because he was very much liked as a General Practitioner. But that was about it.

His fetish for fireworks aside - a hobby that results in the tragic deaths of many - Farrugia doesn't have the chutzpah so necessary for a minister.

His partner, on the other hand, gives the impression of being a go-getter and someone who can get things done. But she is notorious for her parochial approach to politics and campaigning. 

Without her extravagant campaigning - whose funding has its source in her successful profession and her investment in property development - Marlene Farrugia would not have been able to elect herself.

She does not impress me, neither with her ideology (what ideology, if any?) nor her political message.

And in the last years she has impressed me for standing up for the wrong things, first for her anti-divorce stand (bizarre, given her present situation), her support for PN apologist-turned-candidate Norman Vella, and now her criticism of the citizenship scheme.

I would agree with her on a number of issues, but really... I am not one to detach the messenger from the message.

It is, I am afraid, very similar to all those candidates who stand today for the European parliamentary elections. They are, in the very vast majority, trying to give the impression that they would like to stand for Europe because they have a genuine interest in improving Malta's situation.

This, I believe, is a whole load of bollocks.

The only thing that they really want to advance are their pockets and their pension plan. The rest, I'm afraid, is all a question of how gullible you are.

When it comes to the European Parliament, none of the parliamentarians in Brussels express a personal opinion, they toe the party line and none of them would dare to question it.

If they did, they would raise the issue of hunting and they would not shy away from a discussion on abortion with like-minded colleagues from the Socialists & Democrats, for example.

Other members are then notoriously hypocritical: for example, a gay MEP who has even gone as far as voting against amendments or reports dealing with same-sex rights.

The question everyone is asking is: should we take politicians seriously? The answer to that is quite simple.

No. Do not take them seriously. Sooner or later - very much as in that awful film World War Z - they all succumb to the same virus and turn into zombies.

The truth is that if we embrace the democratic process, we have to come to terms with the fact that politicians are what they are: infected zombies who eventually all succumb to the same condition that one finds in politicians such as Marlene Farrugia.