The resurgence of Alfred Sant

It was galling enough for the PN to have suffered another drubbing yesterday – let’s face it, it was a result that not even the most pessimistic activists at Dar Centrali could ever have imagined. But, as the Italian saying goes, sopra corna bastonate, the 48,000 first count votes for the PN’s arch nemesis Alfred Sant, the man who fought tooth and jail against full EU membership, the man who campaigned fiercely for people to abstain or vote NO in the EU referendum, and (most damning of all) the man who refused to accept the referendum result, must be the cruelest irony of all.

An irony which (understandably enough) sticks in the craw of all those who voted Yes for the EU.

Personally, I find it hard to forget that Sant made the country go through the upheaval of a hotly contested election in 2003 which had a foregone conclusion purely because his hardheadedness meant he refused to accept that his partnership idea was rejected by the electorate.

What voters seemed to be saying was that Sant was the best man to sent to the European parliament precisely because of his euro-scepticism.

If he had bowed his head and accepted the referendum result, Labour would have probably won that election but instead, he dug his heels in and inevitably, the PN won. Refusing to admit he was wrong about the referendum result, Alfred Sant hung on until 2008, leading his party to yet another defeat because too many Labour supporters were still not happy with him.

So when Sant announced in 2012 that he would be contesting the MEP elections, my reaction was one of utter disbelief at his audacity and hypocrisy.  My issue is not with his competence or intelligence, because he is undeniably qualified, but with the fact that after all that, after accusing others of simply wanting to ride the gravy train, he was now seeing nothing wrong with jumping on the EU bandwagon himself.

Yet other people obviously see things differently, because while they may not have forgotten what Sant did, they have certainly forgiven him. How else to explain yesterday’s overwhelming vote of confidence? The sheer volume of the votes set me thinking though, because this was not purely a vote for Labour, it was a vote for the man himself.

Ten years after that gruelling EU referendum campaign followed by an equally hostile election (is there any other kind in Malta?), what voters seemed to be saying was that Sant was the best man to sent to the European parliament precisely because of his euro-scepticism.

He was mocked for his appearance and his wig – fair game for who steps onto the public arena – but there comes a point when a line is crossed and people stop finding it funny

And I have a hunch that mingled among those 48,000 first preference votes were quite a few people of the Nationalist persuasion. After all, not everyone was exactly comfortable with the way Roberta Metsola and David Casa sold Malta down the river during that infamous IIP debate.

As the years rolled by since becoming a EU member state, more and more people have started to grudgingly admit that “Sant was right after all” on various EU-related issues.   As the euphoria of membership died down, the realization of what being part of the EU bloc really meant, finally started to sink in. It was not only about how much funds Malta would receive or about how we could go and work, study and live in any of the other member states, it was about reciprocal obligations which Malta also had towards others.

Just to cite one example, if a Maltese could go and settle in any country and be treated equally, that meant any other EU national could come here and expect the same treatment. Similarly, the EU is not just about how much more money we can squeeze out of membership, but about contributing our share too. You would think that all this would have been obvious but, of course, it wasn’t because the EU debate had disintegrated into the pettiness, hysteria and hyperbole of partisan politics and it was difficult for many people to separate the facts from the noise.

European politics aside, I think the overwhelming vote for Sant had another tinge to it.  This was a man, after all, who was not only the PN’s political adversary, but who was depicted as a demon. The campaign against Sant throughout the time he was head of the Labour party went further than the usual par for the course political barbs and criticism. It was a merciless attack not on his politics but on his personal life, starting with the details of his annulled marriage to the unbelievably cruel things which were said when he was diagnosed with cancer.

He was mocked for his appearance, his wooden demeanour in front of the cameras and his wig – fair game, some would say, for anyone who steps onto the public arena – but I believe there comes a point when a line is crossed and people stop finding it funny. It just becomes nasty.

When someone is made fun of so much, it can eventually work the other way until the “victim” ends up with a great amount of public sympathy. My impression is that those votes piling up in Alfred Sant’s pigeon hole were an expression of support not only for Sant the politician whose views are now being respected, but a showing of solidarity for all he had been through with the added ingredient of schadenfreude towards the PN which had tried so hard to break him.

It was a validation of someone many thought was politically finished; it was the kind of comeback which I doubt has ever been seen in Maltese politics.

A friend of mine, who has always believed in Sant, described it as “poetic justice”. And while I still feel he was wrong for not accepting the EU referendum, and while I still think that running for the Euro Parliament smacks of opportunism, the fact that he managed to obtain such an unbelievable number of votes can only mean one thing. Karma does exist.