|
MaltaToday asked Ranier Fsadni and Michael Briguglio to explore what lies behind Sant’s crisp and abrupt answers and whether his exuberant confidence in winning the next election is warranted
James Debono
Alfred Sant’s answers to questions in last Monday’s Times interview were crispy, focused and sharp. Unlike Lawrence Gonzi, Sant does not get himself engaged in a conversation with the interviewer. Sant’s abrupt answers contrast with Gonzi’s more complex answers in a similar interview. While Gonzi comes out as someone with too many things on his mind, Sant comes out as someone with just one thing in his mind: winning the next election.
According to anthropologist and director of the Nationalist leaning Christian Democrat institute AZAD Ranier Fsadi Sant’s brief replies are “anti-sound bites: they are plain, unadorned, sometimes very colloquial, sometimes mixed with Americanisms, almost brusque and impatient at having to state “the obvious” when there is so much practical work to do. Comparing Sant’s style with the more eloquent style of traditional politicians Fsadni notes that the “anti-sound bite rhetoric is every bit as immersed in image-projection as sound bites are. From the moment he became party leader, Dr Sant has sought to project himself as a practical technocratic manager and not a run-of-the-mill career politician. Time will tell whether image and rhetoric will regain the plausibility they had up until 1996.”
The 1996 landslide victory seems to be very much in Alfred Sant’s mind. Riding on the crest of winning three victories mostly by default, Sant has exorcised his image as a perennial loser and a burden on his own party. Whether Sant won on his own steam or simply by default is quite irrelevant, what matters is that Sant has emerged from the pits of political oblivion in which he found himself after 2003. “We have a very strong team. We’ve just won three elections in a row. That’s quite a winning team,”
The winning team was one of the buzzwords in the pre 1996 days. “Well, we did it in 1996, and we did win three times over the last 10 months.” But the corollary of this statement is that Labour and Alfred Sant did not make it in 1998 and 2003.
Sociologist and Alternattiva Demokratika Michael Briguglio compares the MLP’s strategy in 1996 with that in 2003.
“In the 2003 General Election Labour failed to win back categories of voters that had characterised its 1996 victory and subsequently suffered its second consecutive electoral defeat. The Party’s exclusive strategy was reminiscent of Old Labour. In 1996 Labour had won the sympathy of old and new middle-class voters, civil society organisations and various sections of the media. In 2003 Labour was in open conflict with too many sectors and interests – most notably due to the EU issue. The Nationalist Government may have been past its sell-by date to many, but it had a concrete forward-looking project in EU membership. To the contrary, Labour’s ‘Partnership’ project was too vague to many.”
Yet Alfred Sant is still unrepentant of his anti EU past. Asked whether he still believes the electorate made the wrong choice about EU membership he answered, “I still believe that what we were proposing was the best option for the country. Yes, I still believe in it.” But Sant’s way out of this impasse is that “we are EU members we have to make the best of it. We have to get the best bargains.” Reluctant Euro realism has replaced Euro scepticism.
Ranier Fsadi notes that in doing so Sant is presenting himself plausibly “as the ignored prophetic expert.” In a scenario of economic crisis Alfred Sant might sound right, even if the country’s current problems have little to do with EU membership. It is also impossible to gauge whether Malta would have fared better with an experimental partnership agreement.
A sense of self-righteousness pervades Sant’s interview. “We say the truth. We deliver on what we promise and we propose realistic programmes. The other side doesn’t.”
Yet what about Sant’s vision? The few proposals made in the interview lack substance. “We’ll take the Grand Harbour area and push it into a big redevelopment project. Workers from the shipyards could contribute to that. It can be done.” What shipyard workers will be doing exactly in this big redevelopment project remains a mystery. Sant must be credited for starting the process of reform in the Dockyard way back in 1996. The Appledore report was far more audacious than Sant’s current cajoling of shipyard workers.
Hopefully by next June we will have a clear indication of the MLP’s economic policies.
Yet one thing is sure. Sant is confident that he will win the next election.
Commenting on Alfred Sant’s chances of winning the next election sociologist Michael Briguglio thinks that much depends on the performance of the Nationalist Government in areas such as the economy. “Added to that, if Labour adopts a strategy similar to that of 1996, adopting a ‘min mhux kontra taghna huwa maghna’ (who is not against us is with us) approach rather than the Old Labour cry of ‘min mhux maghna huwa kontra taghna’ (who is not with us is against us) that resurfaced between 1998-2003, the Party can emerge victorious.
However it remains to be seen if voters who shifted from Labour to Nationalist in 1998 are willing to give Alfred Sant a second chance in the forthcoming General Elections. But there are various historical instances when defeated leaders witnessed victorious comebacks. Not so long ago Dom Mintoff won an election in 1955 before being removed and went on to win in 1971 after losing two national elections. Sant hopes he can emulate his nemesis and recent predecessor.
One should also give due importance to first-time voters.” Before 1996, Sant also had one thing on his mind: winning. After being elected Sant ended up with so many things on his mind that he could not even manage to govern for more than two years. To be fair, an unjust one-seat majority did not help him. But to win Sant must start showing some statesmanlike qualities.
|
