editorial

Where we stand

Every single time a drug trafficker gets caught the camera lights flash and the newsrooms turn ballistic.
It is Inspector Morse against all the rest, or better still, Assistant Commissioner Michael Cassar and the others.

We have nothing against the upright, focused officer, but one thinks that his Minister should start motioning himself for some good press.

Every time a baron, trafficker, drug peddler or insignificant addict gets apprehended, all sights are on the police and their heroes. When they escape, don’t get caught, or slip through the hands of justice, the lenses and cannons turn to Minister Borg and his colleagues.

Such chemistry is what makes politics juicy, and it upholds the accusation that the government suffers from a bad bout of communications deficiency.

To treat this malaise, one has to seriously reconsider the role of the Department of Information and to see it upgraded from a government lap dog to a dynamic unit led by a personality with outlook and flair.

The Nationalist government conveniently forgets that most of its successes are linked to Labour’s failures.
There are those that argue that an alternation of power is a must.
Yet this thinking process discloses a severe lack of hope for the future.
The reality is that today, the political divide is slowly returning to the 1987 model.

In 1987, many Labourites or individuals with Labourite roots chose not to vote for Labour. With people like Lorry Sant, Joe Grima, Wistin Abela, Philip Muscat, Dom Mintoff, Dennis Sammut, Lino Debono and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, the healthy and sane could not see a viable future for themselves or Malta.
To accommodate that thought they were supported by the actions of Commissioner Lawrence Pullicino and his acolytes and the violent militants that the Labour party offered as a sequel to a cowboy country. Not to mention the corruption and economic and social stagnation that we lived in.

Today most of the old guard has evaporated to be replaced by the younger more moderate Labourites who were always conspicuous by their silence when democracy was sinking and human rights was under threat.
Alfred Sant, lest we forget, was then President of the Labour party when in those days not to react to the demagogy of Labour politics meant either to pretend to be a cabbage and ignore the sufferings of others or to take to the streets.

These people who were silent then and on a utopian Marxist dream were elected for two years in 1996. To their credit, the violence and thuggery did end and the feeling that the Labour party was a poodle to Dom Mintoff proved very wrong.

Better still, the policies heralded by Dr Sant were far from social democratic ones; if anything they were Thatcherite. And many of his policies, most especially about the public sector, were not wrong.

But a lack of political experience and pride led Dr Sant to his downfall, too early in our view.

This country needed a Labour government at the time.

But what has happened now, is that the Labour government is suffering from a severe case of depression and moodiness.

It cannot accept the fact that it has lost and many MLP Leaders are still talking in terms of ‘when we were there they never said this’.

Which is basically true, but it says nothing of being political astute.
The other crucial error in Labour’s baggage is its rigid anti-EU stand.

For those who followed Dr Sant during his speeches when he was premier, one can say with some reassurance that his message was that Malta would not rule out EU membership.

Labour’s defeat at the polls has turned Alfred Sant into an unreasonable europhobe.

A unilateral position that he has shoved down the throats of his immediate entourage. In this situation one cannot lend support to Alfred Sant, for in doing so, one would be doing a disservice to Malta and the Maltese. That approach will earn one the title of serving the Nationalist government, which may be true for the short term but not for the long term.

In the long term it will be the Nationalists who feel uneasy about Europe.

Dr Sant is the only socialist leader in Europe to espouse an isolationist policy. He knows that his Switzerland example will run out of steam and has little future.

His arguments appeal to those who embrace nationalism, inward looking policies and unfortunately for all of us, the uneducated, the conservative and the easily impressed.