Taking nothing for granted

Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami maintains that the Labour leader has still not learnt that it takes more to run a country than gimmicks. Talking to Steve Mallia, the prime minister says the choice for voters on Saturday is between growth in Europe or stagnation in isolation.

What do you think of the Broadcasting Authority's recent decision to ban editions of Xarabank on party manifestos because of the Labour Party's refusal to take part?

I disagree with it. I think it has set a dangerous precedent which I hope is not followed.

God forbid we succumb to a political figure who dictates what kind of programmes can be aired according to whether he likes them or not.

Do you feel the Broadcasting Authority members should resign because of that decision?

I don't think it is for me to say whether they should resign or not. I think everyone has to take responsibility for their actions. I am not going to ask for resignations but I will say that this decision appears to be mistaken.

You made the choice of chairman. Are you happy with that choice?

The chairman is a serious person who inspires confidence. But I think he is mistaken in his approach to such broadcasting issues.

Do you think it's acceptable today to have a Broadcasting Authority that only has responsibility for state television and not the party stations. Is it time to change that?

The Broadcasting Authority does not only have responsibility for state broadcasting, although it has special responsibilities where state broadcasting is concerned. It is possible that its structure needs to be looked at again. It might be time to revert back to the system of having experts on the authority.

Will you deal with this problem quickly if you are re-elected?

I can't guarantee that I will deal with the problem because changing this part of the Constitution requires an amendment that needs to be approved by a two-thirds majority in parliament. But I would say now that the members of a future authority need to inspire more confidence in the workings of the authority itself. Nobody doubts the independence of the current chairman but half the authority's members practically always take a decision based on what suits one particular party. This should end.

Does it concern you that if re-elected you will be taking Malta into the EU when a large number of people voted against membership?

I think we need to maintain a sense of proportion. For example, a lot of people were against membership in the UK but over time those who were against became the most ardent supporters of the EU. A case in point is the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who today says that the biggest political mistake he ever made was to take part in a campaign to take Britain out of the EU.

Do you have any plans to try and persuade the people who did not vote yes or embrace them in some way?

In our electoral campaign we have been working very hard on this. This is an extraordinary election because people are not just voting for a government for five years but they are also voting for Malta to join Europe. I do not think it will be difficult, once we join, to persuade many of those who oppose membership today to change their view.

Do you think you made a mistake by not putting in writing how a referendum should be interpreted?

We have it in writing. The Referendum Act states that a referendum will go through if a majority of the valid votes are in favour of the proposal. It is a gimmick by (Labour leader) Alfred Sant to say there are no regulations. There are regulations, which are contained within the law, which, incidentally, was recently unanimously approved by parliament.

Don't they just apply to abrogative referendums?

No. They apply to any referendum. Naturally, the difference is that an abrogative referendum is binding while a referendum on a question of this nature is consultative. But the fact remains that the result is calculated on the basis of the valid votes.

Do you actually have a plan as a government for EU membership?

We are already discussing with the EU what is known as the Single Programming Document which deals with the projects that the government intends to implement with the EU's assistance. I think the country made great changes in the past four-and-a-half years and a large proportion of Maltese have realised this process of change needs to continue and will continue with the Nationalist Party in government.

Don't you feel that the changes were made too fast for certain people?

I don't think so. I think there was a lot of fear when we started. But as we went along, particularly as the negotiations were held in consultation with practically the whole of civil society, many of those who had doubts over EU membership or were outright against are now in favour. One sector we won over in recent months is our farming community and I think another is the self employed.

Was the government too arrogant to reach an agreement with Alternattiva Demokratika?

Absolutely not. But we are realists. Once AD took the decision to field its own candidates, it posed a threat to the PN's chances of obtaining an absolute majority in the election. Things are uncertain enough vis-a-vis Europe, given the Labour Party's position. We do not need to take more risks.

But if your overriding goal is EU membership, wouldn't it be in the national interest to form some kind of alliance with AD?

We explored that route, but it is not viable. The risk is that either we would not obtain an absolute majority or that we would have a slightly lower percentage than the Labour Party. This could give an absolute majority of the seats in parliament to the Labour Party.

Did the PN use AD in its referendum campaign and then discard it afterwards?

Absolutely not. In the referendum campaign we welcomed everyone who believed it was in Malta's interests to join the EU. Effectively we made history: for the first time ever, 31 organisations came together before the referendum and after the referendum.

You criticised Dr Sant when he came out with his proposal of a second referendum. If you had lost the referendum, would you not have done the same as he did?

His proposal to hold a referendum with an option of either membership or partnership is nothing but another gimmick - which I think has done him a lot of damage within his own party because everyone understands that what we negotiated will no longer apply if we do not sign the Accession Treaty on April 16.

Has anyone actually told you that membership will not be available in years to come?

The EU has a programme which states that there should be an enlargement. We should not forget that up till two years ago there were many people saying that the enlargement would not include as many as 10 countries. Effectively the 15 members took a very courageous decision. If one of these countries - and it appears that Malta is the only possibility - says that it will not sign the treaty, the EU will say "thank you very much. We made you an offer. You didn't accept it. We will carry on with our programme but without you".

Won't membership be available to Malta in 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania are likely to join?

No. In 2007 it will not be possible for us. Perhaps at some time in the distant future, who knows? In Norway's case, it applied to join in 1972 and then did not get another chance until some 20 years later.

What is your position on the war in Iraq?

Obviously, it is not easy to criticise a decision when one is not in possession of the full facts: but this government was and is of the opinion that any action should have been authorised by the UN Security Council.

It wasn't, so were the UK and US wrong to start a war in Iraq?

If I had to take the decision, I would definitely not have taken a decision to start a war. But I think now we are beyond a discussion over the merits of war. What we want is for the war to end as soon as possible.

Do you think this issue has done permanent damage to the EU?

The damage is not small. However, I am convinced that the damage will not be permanent. What it shows is that there is still some way to go before the EU becomes a real political force. It is my government's hope that the EU will have a powerful voice in international relations and particularly when there is a crisis.

But doesn't this issue prove that it is not possible for the EU to have a common voice at this stage?

The facts support that position. But they also prove that the EU is not a superstate in which member states have given up sovereignty.

A few years ago, when there was certain disquiet, you made a speech in which you told people to "stop moaning". A few weeks ago you asked for forgiveness. Why the apparent change of heart?

I don't think it's a change of heart. It is sometimes possible to get lost in a negative loop. For example, is a glass half empty or is it half full? I belong to the half full school! But then I cannot also forget that there are also individuals who feel aggrieved - I am not saying that someone would have intentionally done them some injustice - but they may have been at the receiving end of some decision or other which has impacted negatively on them.

So I said that, in the circumstances, it is not the right time for someone who feels aggrieved to vote against the government because this time it is not just a change of government that is at stake, but also the EU. I don't feel the two things are contradictory. We have set up institutions which make it less necessary to chase ministers but we have not arrived at a stage that is satisfactory for those with a grievance.

Is this the fault of the ministers responsible for these institutions?

One needs to understand that we are going through a period of transition. The policy of the governments I have led has been to divest ourselves of power except where necessary.

Why didn't you make any changes to your cabinet if there were mistakes in the last five years?

If I was sure that the mistakes could be attributed to particular ministers, I would not have had any difficulty in either removing or replacing them. However, I do not think the shortcomings come from the ministers themselves, even if not all their decisions have been good ones. There are still people today who think that a minister should overrule the authorities that are in place but we certainly do not want to kill off the independence of the authorities that exist and revert back to the Labour system of government where all decisions were discretionary decisions taken by ministers. That just led to corruption.

Shouldn't someone take responsibility?

Obviously, if there are mistakes one can make the relevant authority aware of them and the necessary consequences should take their course. But it should only happen in extreme cases. Of course, ministers have to take responsibility if their policies are wrong. But are the mistakes we are talking about policy mistakes or mistakes in the implementation of policy? Take Mepa, for example. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days when planning decisions were taken by a certain minister. Nevertheless, Mepa is still too bureaucratic, even if things have clearly improved over the last four-and-a-half years.

Are you going to make any changes to your cabinet if re-elected?

I don't know who's going to be elected and I have to choose my ministers from those who are going to be returned. I am sure there will be some changes.

Given that you have the same people to choose from, are any changes likely?

I won't pre-empt myself, but of course I will do what I think is best for the country.

Have you thought about it?

Frankly I haven't.

Don't you think there's a lack of accountability in this country? If you look abroad, people resign over seemingly small things. Here it takes something major.

I think that's true. In Malta we don't hear about many resignations and everyone hides behind the law. I think journalists can play a larger role here. I think we still don't have a media that reacts strongly enough when there is abuse.

Your party's billboards depict Dr Sant's policies as dangerous. Do you have any justification to say this?

His two years of government were an absolute disaster for this country. He went against explicit promises that he made in his electoral manifesto on a whole host of things, from the cost of water and electricity to students' stipends. That proved he is not reliable.

Look at the way in which he acted in both the referendum and electoral campaigns.

Then there is the pact he signed with such pomp and circumstance on Monday. This was not the first public pact he signed.

He tried the same gimmick in 1996. He still hasn't learnt that governing a country requires more than gimmicks, it requires good politics and sheer hard work.

Will you resign if you lose the election?

I do not believe we are going to lose the election. This government has been a good government that has delivered across the board, from job opportunities, to education, health and social services. Additionally, our most important task was to open negotiations with the EU and conclude an acceptable package for Malta's membership of the European Union. This we have done too.

I believe our policies remain sound and in line with the aspirations of the people. Although every election campaign is difficult - I can assure you I am taking nothing for granted - I believe the people understand that in reality they have a simple choice before them: "Growth in Europe" or "stagnation in isolation". On the one hand, we have Malta's future charted ahead of us for the coming decades and, on the other, uncertainty followed by more uncertainty.