interview

Moving forward after the storm



MLP deputy leader, George Vella, speaks to Miriam Dunn about that extraordinary party conference, and how the Labour party has picked up the pieces since

Nobody was more surprised than Labour party deputy leader George Vella when George Abela stood up at the now infamous 1998 MLP conference and announced that he would sever his links with the party if it decided to go ahead with an early election.

Although we are talking about where the MLP has arrived now, Dr Vella stresses it is necessary to step back to 1998 to see how the party, bruised and battered after its election disaster almost three years ago, has picked itself up and moved forward.

"I want to make it clear that I was not surprised we lost some support following that extraordinary party conference, since people ended up even more baffled, primarily because of Dr Abela’s speech, at a time when we had planned to fully explain the situation we were in," the MLP deputy leader says. "And I can assure you that when Dr Abela made his announcement, it was a big shock for everybody, since, before the conference, we were all in agreement, including George Abela, that there was no alternative to a general election."

Dr Vella admits that the MLP knew the 1998 election was going to be a challenge, but stresses that those at the top could genuinely see no alternative to going to the polls.

"The party was definitely not in its best form and of course, we didn’t want a mid-term election when we had internal division and all those mixed messages were flying about," he says. "But when it became obvious that Mintoff was not going to budge from his standpoint, we decided if we could not govern, there was no option but to once again seek an electoral mandate."

He admits that people from all walks of life, including political analysts, have since told him that they now question the wisdom of the decision.

"And to those people, I always say the same thing," he says. "Yes, we could have stayed on as a figurehead, as a government not passing laws, just waiting for time to pass. But this would not have been in the best interest of the country."

Dr Vella stresses that no one was more against such a scenario than the Labour party leader himself.

"From my years with Alfred Sant, I have realised that whatever people say, his prime objective before personal power is having the best governance for the country," he says. "In those critical days, some of us were hoping against hope that another solution would present itself. But Dr Sant wanted to rid the country of the crisis as quickly as possible, so much so that people were almost holding him back from taking a decision."

Dr Vella admits that the MLP had not expected to lose the 1998 election, since, although they knew it would be tough, their own polls had indicated they would win by a very small majority.

"Obviously the result was a disappointment and we inevitably went through a period of gloom," he says. "But we passed through this stage and after Dr Sant was reconfirmed leader, we reached a point when we knew we had to muster up our courage and begin working again. And now I believe it appears that we are once again relaying our message successfully and getting people on our side."

Dr Vella explains that he had always been interested in politics, but only in a general sense.

I came from a Labour family - my father was a Dockyard worker - but they were never fanatics," he explains. "Before the party took an interest in me, I had never attended a mass meeting or been a member of any political youth group."

He was approached by the MLP while working as a medical doctor in his home village of Zejtun.

"I remember it was the election of 1976 when I was pushed, if you like, towards contesting, since it was announced that I was going to stand as an MP before I had actually made up my mind!

"I didn’t make it that time, but then I was elected in a by-election and entered Parliament in 1978."

Since that time, Dr Vella has been re-elected in each election, except that of 1987.

However, although this result was obviously a disappointment for him, he also considers it a time during which he made an important contribution to the party.

"Obviously it’s disappointing when you don’t get elected, but then you get over it and you start thinking what you can do," he says. "At the time, a group of us, including Toni Abela and Wenzu Mintoff, initiated a movement which was quite innovative, with a view to trying to make some changes within the MLP, especially the reputation it had for being associated with violence."

Dr Vella stresses that he was well aware of the violent elements that were associated with party politics, "coming from a Zejtun background" and had always ensured he "kept away from these elements."

"In fact, it made me really sad to think I was backing a party which I loved and felt I belonged to, but which had an image I didn’t feel I could share," he says. "That made me react. I knew that was the way I could help."

Dr Vella also highlights the support he got from the MLP leader of the time, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, who nominated him for the post of party leader in 1992.

"I was toying with the idea of whether I should take that responsibility, and I needed to be sure that the ideas I was working on – a clean party and a collegial leadership - would find support," he says. "But I was pleased to find that it was accepted that we needed to move away from the ‘father’ image of one person at the top and towards a ‘clean’ party that would condemn all the things that happened in the past which were wrong."

I ask him whether, if the MLP’s popularity is growing, he believes this is because the public agrees with its opinions and policies, or more because there is growing disillusionment with the Nationalist government.

"I think that people are unhappy because the government is not delivering," he answers.

Dr Vella believes this is easier to understand, having traced back the steps of how the PN was elected in 1998.

"The PN’s credibility was already dented at the 1998 election, but they were returned because the people didn’t have any choice," he says.

"The 1996 election result showed that people had realised there was another party that could offer a different route to solving the country’s problems. Then Mintoff decided to bring the party down at a time when, even if we were going through some mid-term blues, we had begun tackling some of the problems and, just as importantly, talking about them, which the Nationalists had never done.

"When the MLP came to power, people realised just how dishonest the PN had been, hiding how critical the situation had become. But faced with choosing between a party which had disillusioned the electorate and a party which was fractured, as we were, the result was understandable."

Dr Vella believes that it is the MLP’s trait of being straight with the people that will be a key to their future success.

"No one can accuse the MLP of being dishonest," he says. "We might have bungled, we might have done some things the wrong way, but those are mistakes we admit and no one can say there was any tinge of corruption or dishonesty."

So does he believe there is now a considerable number of floating voters for both parties to target?

"Certainly, now there are Nationalists that are discontent, just as there were Labourites who were disillusioned when we were in government," he answers. "We have to learn that people are no longer entrenched in partisan politics. They have a mind of their own, they are better informed and they expect us to deliver."

Dr Vella believes Malta is moving further towards the British model, where there are huge swings in voting patterns, and away from the bipolar die-hard traditions.

"Both parties will have to really work hard to get support from the undecided," he admits.

So does this swing in voting patterns stretch to the European Union issue, I ask him.

"Winning an election for the PN is no guarantee that they will win a referendum," he replies. "I know die-hard Nationalists who are against EU membership and I know MLP people who are pro-EU membership. But one thing I’m sure about is that the EU will be the main issue at the next election."

Dr Vella believes it is vital that, for people to understand the implications of EU membership, the issue is brought down from its intangible level and broken down into components, or sectors, which the public can relate to.

"And this is why we’re angry at the government for not making available the studies that were commissioned," he explains. "We’re not doing it out of partisan pique, we’re saying money has been spent on these non-partisan analyses and if there’s some negative points, let’s hear them."

The MLP deputy leader also believes that to an extent, the government is shooting itself in the foot by refusing to divulge certain information.

"The more secretive the government is, the more suspicious people become," he says. "And the public has realised that contrary to what the government is saying, we are not trying to scare-monger, we are simply asking the government to reveal the facts."

Dr Vella rejects criticism that the MLP’s stand on the EU is isolationist.

"This is simply not true," he says. "In fact, I think people have now realised that we were talking sense when we said there was another way, an alternative path, in Europe. And by the same stroke, I believe the PN has lost credibility because it insisted there was no alternative to full membership."

Dr Vella stresses that while in government, the MLP had made good progress with the EU.

"Contrary to some impressions given, we were not shown the door in Brussels, we were treated very civilly, very democratically," he says. "And people listened to us, to the extent that while we were in government, we signed a joint binding declaration with the EU as to what our position was."

And is the MLP going to hold firm to its refusal to recognise the result of a referendum on the EU?

"I think the referendum pledge was a vote catcher by the PN in the beginning and I still think the mandate it got was just one to negotiate," he answers. "We said we would not bind ourselves with the result of the referendum. And today we know that the EU will not accept anything short of a general election, since they know we will not recognise the referendum.

"The government needs a decisive vote in an election and we believe the people deserve the chance to have a normal election in normal conditions for there to be a real decision."

I ask Dr Vella whether he accepts that the lack of political consensus on the EU issue is contributing to uncertainty in the country, which is damaging the economy.

"Granted, the fact that there are two different opinions on the EU issue has an impact – of course - but you cannot blame all the uncertainty on the lack of consensus," he replies. "In fact Commissioner Mario Monti had said that it is inevitable for uncertainty to be present in the applicant countries because the investors are still waiting to see what the conditions will be when membership takes place. It is hard for them to make decisions when concessions and other important factors are not yet known."