Editorial | Wednesday, 17 December 2008

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

A President’s legacy

Controversy and statesmanship are never too far apart; and the greater the statesmen concerned, the greater the controversy that surrounds them.
From this perspective it was perhaps inevitable that Prime Minister Gonzi’s choice for President of the Republic would have elicited a chorus of disapproval four years ago: after all, Dr Eddie Fenech Adami had already dominated the Maltese political landscape for almost a quarter of a century; and to a certain point, he had himself anointed Gonzi as his own successor.
As the President’s tenure now draws to its close, it is understandable that historians and political commentators would offer their own personal appraisals of his future legacy. Less understandable is the fact that, of the many who criticised his original appointment, a few now seem to forget that Dr Fenech Adami had been elevated to the Presidency immediately after stepping down as Prime Minister, precisely after a long and bitterly divisive reign.
There was (and still is) much to object to in this uncharacteristic transition: especially considering that up until that point, Fenech Adami appeared destined to be remembered for the many beneficial effects of his long career as Prime Minister and Opposition leader. Foremost among these is the reconstitution of Maltese democracy after the traumatic 1980s, as well as the successful (if polemical) steering of Malta into the European Union in 2003.
But at the same time, few would deny that Eddie Fenech Adami also came to emblemise Malta’s eternal political divide. For this reason alone, many were surprised by his acceptance of an Office which is supposed to symbolise national unity.
To be fair, Dr Fenech Adami did try to make amends for the many expressions of endemic partisanship that characterised his tenure as Prime Minister. Among his very first acts as President of the Republic was to repeal several libel lawsuits he himself had previously filed against notable Labour journalists; but then again, this only reinforced the impression that his appointment had been artificially concocted precisely to bury uncomfortable political controversies.
The fact that he proceeded to lose two libel suits as President (albeit brought against him while still Prime Minister) further illustrates the failure of his otherwise commendable efforts to put his own past behind him.
Add to this the multiple Presidential pardons previously awarded to his former bodyguard Zeppi l-Hafi, and it is hard to shake off the impression that Gonzi’s choice may have been partly dictated by a desire to place this thorny issue beyond any form of legal reproach... at least for the duration of Fenech Adami’s presidency.
Even without these lingering doubts, it must be said that Dr Fenech Adami occasionally failed to rise above his own divisive legacy on other issues, too.
On the rare occasions when he spoke his mind openly, he often raised eyebrows by appearing to complain about the limitations of his own office. For instance, in April 2005 Dr Fenech Adami aired his belief that the powers of the President should be extended, to be able to send legislation back to Parliament for a second hearing.
Theoretically there is nothing wrong with the proposal: but at the same time it would have been altogether more appropriate to wait for his own term to expire, before recommending a massive increment to his own executive powers.
Besides, there is a good reason why the Presidency is at present a purely ceremonial office: it is decided only by a simple parliamentary majority, after a purely formal consultation with the Opposition leader. Any change to this status quo would require an overhaul of the Presidency’s Constitutional set-up, and would certainly not be retroactively applicable to the incumbent.
But perhaps the most regrettable legacy of Fenech Adami’s term as President was the way in which he overshadowed any discussion on divorce – an issue he has always vociferously opposed.
As President, Fenech Adami pre-emptively conditioned the entire Gonzi administration by expressing his “confidence” that the issue would not be raised at all during his term.
This confidence turned out to be somewhat premature, considering that both Lawrence Gonzi and Social Policy Minister John Dalli have separately admitted to the need for a discussion on divorce in recent months. But with the hint of a Constitutional crisis now hanging over the issue, as a direct result of the President’s own words, it has proved virtually impossible to have any meaningful discussion during Fenech Adami’s tenure of office.
All of this remains a great pity, when one considers the otherwise exemplary contribution made by Dr Fenech Adami to local politics, especially during our country’s most difficult recent years.
Either way, however, one hopes that historians will ultimately take all aspects of the Fenech Adami legacy – not just the positive, and not just the negative either – when it comes to formalising this chapter in the history books.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.