An old man's fire and brimstone

Alfred Sant did not have much choice about the 1998 election, forced on him by Dom Mintoff, who had no scruples about using his inordinate backbench power in the one-seat majority government to which he was elected.

Now had any Labour MP thought the same about himself in 1971, when it was Mr Mintoff who led a one-seat majority government - why, there would then have been more sausage meat in Malta, so to say, to vandalise a local metaphor.

This time round, I am afraid, it is all Dr Sant's doing, or perhaps his party's. He it was, or it, who chose to oppose European Union membership, no matter what.

They must have underestimated the pull that Europe exerts. It is easy for Mr Mintoff, with nothing better to do, to rant against the EU. What does he have to lose - he can call it a day any time he wants, on the pretext of his age. But Dr Sant is leader of his party. And look where they have come to. Look where Mr Mintoff's actions have brought them.

It could be make or break for Dr Sant. Though it was not his fault at all, to my way of thinking, that he lost the government after just 22 months in office in 1998, he has since lost the membership referendum, too, no matter the weird mathematical contortions forced on him by political necessity. And now he stands to lose the general election as well.

His party will look on him as a loser, if Saturday does not take him to Castille. His leadership will be in danger.

I would not be surprised, if Dr Sant loses the election, to see him hand in the towel, without anyone's bidding. Unlike Mr Mintoff in 1981, Dr Sant did not in 1998 cling to power, come what may. He went to the country.

Mr Mintoff, with all his oratorical skills, the iron hold he had on his party, and his bravado, did not do anything of the sort in 1981. He spoke of a perverse result, and conveniently soldiered on. While we had to continue making do with Desserta, and, on a higher, loftier plane, with what led to the deaths of Nardu Debono in 1980, of Raymond Caruana years later, of Tal-Barrani, and the Rabat shootings.

Eddie Fenech Adami disposed of Mr Mintoff. He was the right man, knight on a white charger so to say, when Malta needed one most. He did not let the country down and restored the democracy we were on the point of losing.

Today he is probably tired - who wouldn't be - and will surely bow out some time, weeks, perhaps months, maybe a bit more, after next Saturday. The Nationalist Party will have a new leader then to reinvigorate it. With the right man, another of Dr Fenech Adami's calibre perhaps, if one can be found, and possibly with Malta in the EU, it would be a keen contest come 2008.

Where will Dr Sant be then?

Mr Mintoff, at the venerable age of 86, is mouthing fire and brimstone again. He sees neutrality in danger, and is talking of trouble.

Trouble looms for Malta on the horizon. For the sake of neutrality. I am writing from memory, and I do not know that neutrality was ever on anyone's election manifesto. Yet it was forced into the constitution, when the statesman that is Dr Fenech Adami accepted it for the sake of having the majority rule.

Malta was on the brink of civil war then. Taken to the edge of the precipice by Mr Mintoff's bravado and brinkmanship. With Dr Fenech Adami's help he pulled us back. But he can't expect to be seen as the saviour of democracy, surely? He trampled democracy.

If Alfred Sant is made to give up the party leadership, or decides to go, the leadership contenders will be seeking alliances, to boost their hopes. I wonder, who will seek an alliance with Mr Mintoff's faction? And if someone does, what promises will be made, strategy-wise?

The Labour Party should be wary. Mr Mintoff is likely to lead whoever follows him, or makes an alliance with him, to the difficulties he is predicting. It would be exactly what the Nationalist Party, under a new leader, would need to ensure another victory at the polls.

For with trouble on the streets, which Mr Mintoff seems to be promising and which the country does not want, it would likely be a walkover for the PN.

All for the idiosyncracies of an old man, who bowed out in 1998 and resurrected himself this year to "defend" neutrality. Who even when he was younger was against allowing colour television sets, computers, and even a baggage carousel at the airport.

The EU referendum has come and gone. The Labour Party based its case on Malta's size, on Malta not fitting into the huge EU. On the argument that one-size-fits-all did not suit Malta. They only rarely referred to neutrality in that long debate.

Now suddenly, the goalposts are changed. Suddenly neutrality takes on much more substance. If Malta signs the accession treaty on Wednesday, it will mean the end of the Constitution, for neutrality will be breached, Labour is saying. A new political war threatens, which this time may spill into the streets. If Mr Mintoff has his way.

What the Labour Party should ask itself is: which Maltese government would dare take Malta into an alliance to make war? Our wars have all come to us because we were a colony. Today we are independent. Why should the Nationalist Party risk the politically suicidal path of making war with others? Would the PN in government ever send Maltese soldiers to fight a foreign war? Do we have soldiers trained to make war? Mr Mintoff calls our soldiers ta' l-operetti! And gets away with it. Of course he does, we humour the elderly. Even the cantankerous elderly.

Mr Mintoff would have us believe the PN is feckless in the face of foreign coercion. But the PN was not feckless when faced with the ruthlessness of his regime. It saved democracy for us.

If you will remember, Mr Mintoff also tried to have us believe, when some of our best consultants had been forced to go abroad, that we had the best hospital in Europe. That was when he had brought in foreign consultants to St Luke's who spoke neither Maltese nor English, and could therefore not communicate with their patients.

Just who is trying to kid whom?