More to Opposition than just opposing

In recent weeks, it has emerged beyond all reasonable doubt that a change in approach to various issues is now required as a matter of urgency.

One example (though there are many others) would be the prison system, which has been under scrutiny since the sinister implications of a drug-trafficking operation taking place within the prison itself.

Turning to the political implications of this unfolding scenario, one can hardly be surprised that the Opposition party would seize the opportunity to highlight the issue at a press conference, and question the capability of the minister currently in charge of home affairs.

This is what Opposition home affairs spokesman Michael Falzon did earlier this week: significantly adding that the party was not excluding calling for a vote of confidence in Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

Falzon is certainly within his rights to question the minister's control of the situation: more so since the administrative bungle apparently perpetrated by the Home Affairs Ministry in rushing a Restorative Justice Act into force... without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure was in place beforehand.

These are all valid issues for an opposition party to raise; but they are not the only questions to be asked or answered at this point. Falzon himself also has some explaining to do: in particular, over the apparent doubt he cast over the issue of parole, when he candidly admitted that Labour 'had its doubts' over whether this was a valid solution to prison's problems.

To be fair it is not clear whether the Opposition spokesman was referring to parole as a concept in its own right, or simply about parole in the form it has been introduced locally. But this only emphasises the consistent question marks that continue to surround Labour's policies on so many other issues also.

In fact it is surprising that, with little more than a year to go for the next election (possibly less, depending on factors outside the PL's control), the Opposition seems incapable of fielding any direct questions about its policy on restorative justice, or indeed anything else.

And yet, simply pointing out flaws in the present system is clearly not enough to reassure the public that a Labour administration would do a better job.

Turning our attention away from prison to other areas, and the same overall questions arise. For instance: Muscat's party has consistently (and rightly) criticised the present government over its handling of the budgetary cuts imposed by the European Commission. In particular, Labour is entirely correct to demand answers regarding exactly where the €40 million incision will be made.

But one has to remind the Opposition that it has been asked precisely the same question regarding its own plans for the economy; so far without any clear answer.

Instead, we have time and again been told that under a Labour government, public expenditure will be significantly reduced... but in the same breath we have been reassured that no social services will be repealed or reduced; so the same anomaly persists.

Likewise we have been told repeatedly that a Labour government will reduce water and electricity prices; but at the same time, in the absence of any clear picture of the Opposition's energy policy, it is quite frankly impossible to guess how this will be achieved, if at all.

Ironically, both PN and PL are committed to spending less (the former under duress from Brussels, the latter bound by its own pre-electoral pledges); and both parties stolidly refuse to reveal how they intend to do this.

And yet, they both criticise each other for the same shortcoming, oblivious to the fact that this inherent hypocrisy is now visible for all to see.

In the case of Labour the situation is compounded by the fact that the party is presenting itself  as a credible alternative government. However, while criticising government for failing to produce a workable policy on energy, water, and other vital issues, the same Labour Party has so far failed to come up with any workable policy of its own on any of these issues... beyond the publication of rather vague proposals (51 in all) which detail where the party wants to go... without specifying how, exactly, it intends to get there.

This is simply not good enough. As recent events have amply illustrated (including some in which the same PL played a prominent role) the voting public has become more discerning, not less.

Besides, while the concept of power alternation is undeniably important for democratic advancement; it cannot be considered as an end unto itself. 'Credible' alternative governments have to do more than just oppose and criticise. They also have to put their money where their mouth is and illustrate their precise intentions by means of more than just empty rhetoric alone.

In brief, it would be a rash gamble on the part of Labour to simply assume that popular disgruntlement with the present administration is enough to carry it all the way into power. On the contrary, it almost certainly will not be... not, that is, unless the disgruntlement is adequately matched by a clear and unequivocal electoral programme.