The significant progress made by this country over the past two decades is attested to by varying factors which are both tangible and perceived. Among the most appreciated development, however, has been the eradication of violence which had become a common occurrence during street manifestations, an occurrence which reached its heyday in the 1980s. Both major political parties did their utmost to calm things down and successfully controlled their people to the extent that street violence has since then very rarely been witnessed and was consigned to history.

Yet the scenes witnessed earlier this week, with protesters gleefully hurling insults at the administration, were somewhat a surreal reminder of days gone by, much to the disbelief of the rest of the nation.

In no way can the disparaging remarks towards the administration be condoned in a civilised and democratic country.

The disbelief stemmed from the fact that the purpose of the protest was to possibly induce government into revoking the increase in energy tariffs applicable from January of this year. In actual fact, the national protests were organised by a coterie of unions rather than a political party, yet the scenes reminisced otherwise. Television stations aired clips with some protesters clearly indicating that they were protesting against the leadership of the Prime Minister rather than the high energy tariffs.

The new PL leader must have surely cringed hearing his followers chanting such disparaging remarks towards the administration, or has he not? It would be interesting to have his reaction on the matter and whether he would seek to avoid a repeat in future.

Nonetheless, the protesters did not descend to such low levels uninitiated and the tone used by the leaders of the national protest while addressing the crowds could be a clear indication to what led the manifestation to take such an ugly twist on the second day.

During Sunday’s protest, both the GWU and MUT leaders singled out at least two other union leaders by their name for not participating in the national protest. Besides, a journalist colleague was also named for writing a story that teachers disgusted with the alliances and crusade embarked upon by the MUT, intended to switch unions and join the UHM. Singling out people during manifestations is surely not the right way to protest against higher energy tariffs especially when union leaders had explained their reasoning for not participating. On the basis of this, the protesters can hardly be blamed for their overzealousness to discredit the administration based on their leaders’ bullying tactics.

It is futile for the MUT leader to condemn the attitude and behaviour of the protesters on Monday evening when he was part of the leadership that instigated such a reaction. Mr Bencini was physically present, together with the leaders of at least another 11 unions who flanked each other in front of Parliament, and could clearly hear the protesters’ chants. All union leaders, who were seemingly unionised in their mission to organise two national protests, had the best part of three hours during which they could have pleaded with the security present to bring in check the behaviour of the crowd. No union leader dared take the initiative and with hindsight they might have even approved of the situation.

What did Mr Bencini expect then and what does he expect now? Being at the helm of a professional union, in this case the teaching profession, is different from leading a general union. The consequences of his alliance with the GWU resulted in MUT members reconsidering their membership within the union. For this, he blamed a journalist who exposed the reaction to his unilateral actions.

Mr Bencini might perceive these observations as personal attacks, and he would be wrong once again. The writing was on the wall all the time and he failed to see it, or he preferred the status of power that the run-up and duration of a national protest provided him.

Mr Bencini now has to respond for his actions, as leader of the Ghaqda Unions Maltin and ForUM, and also responsible for the MUT. As this newspaper commented editorially last week, professional unions such as the MUT and those constituting the ForUM form a strange and unnatural alliance with a general union. The fact that the PL joined the bandwagon, and the national protest received a political tinge, should have made these professional unions reconsider their position.

Now that the vote has been taken, two factors remain fluid: the protesters have significantly raised their expectations and expect further action after all the hype, and the professional unions’ credibility is at stake with their own members who in future might reconsider supporting their puerile misjudgement of situations.