By YGTV's Political Editor

As part of YGTV's View on Politics series, I recently interviewed the three leaders of Gibraltar's political parties. All three proved to be very different both personally and politically. Daniel Feetham, my first interviewee, came across as very passionate; Nick Cruz, the new leader of the PDP, presented some bold policies and Fabian Picardo certainly accepts every challenge with flair and confidence. One thing that unites these three political figures is their professional background -they're all lawyers.

A quick look at the Government and Opposition benches and the trend continues: Licudi, Sacramento, Bossino, Figueras and so on. Even the most glaring exception (Joe Bossano), as a close friend of mine once observed, “is more lawyer-like in his methods and intellect than the rest of them put together”. Political life in Gibraltar has been and continues to be dominated by lawyers. The three major law firms have acted as virtual finishing schools for Gibraltar's political class. What implications does this have for politics as conducted locally and what might politics be like if a wider variety of professions were represented?

First, let's begin with a caveat (unfortunately these things need to be made explicit otherwise I will be open to misinterpretation). I have nothing against lawyers and, more specifically, nothing against lawyers getting involved in politics; I merely want to indulge briefly in a fantasy regarding one way in which local politics might be transformed.

It was to be expected that a host of well-educated, highly able, eloquent and committed professionals with previous knowledge and experience of local laws, regulations and business matters should feel drawn to political life and it is also true that their professional background is a suitable preparation for the real work of politics like negotiation, the implementation of policy and the defence of one's position, for example. What worries me is whether certain negative features of political discourse in Gibraltar can be directly attributed to the dominance of lawyers.

Allow me a crude caricature (remember, all crude caricatures merely magnify traits that are already there in plain view): a battle of legal minds, when transferred to the arena of political debate, can result in the indefatigable exchange of claim and counter claim, in a fastidious nit-picking which obfuscates the original topic at issue, in a game where winning at all costs is valued over compromise, humility, even vision. Does this sound familiar? This simplistic picture - brought to life by that Hollywood favourite, the hot shot lawyer presenting devastating arguments to an entranced jury - is what happens when the skills of the courtroom, where one is defending a client, are employed in political debate, where one's aims and methods ought to be altogether different.

The alternative approach, characterised by pastoral skills and championed by some highly respected non-lawyers (Bernard Linares and the late Charles Bruzon come to mind) is a strong argument for the need for politicians from professions more representative of the community they serve. Imagine a cabinet composed of a mix of former social workers, construction managers, an academic, a nurse, perhaps even (God forbid!) a philosopher. The dominance of lawyers might even serve to dissuade many from becoming involved in politics in the first place, people who might otherwise be able to offer the community a less confrontational, more enlightened and, dare I say, perhaps even a more human approach to the political game.