The leader has changed. Long live the leader. Yesterday week, the swiftness with which party councillors broke into Ghax ghandna 'l Gonzi maghna ahna maqghudin, was quite startling. The two-syllable surname was made for the chant, I understand that, but there was Dr Fenech Adami, who first inspired that political hymn among the party faithful, apparently no longer there. And yet, startling though it was, the spontaneous reaction made sense. A hard fought, and let it be said, intelligent campaign for the leadership of the Nationalist Party had come to its predetermined end.
Dr Galea gracefully declared himself out of the race and swore eternal loyalty to the party, the government, his principles. Mr Dalli followed suit in an edifying gesture that said let's call it a day. The field was left to Dr Gonzi. A baton was hardly ever handed on so seamlessly, none received so smoothly. It was, in the best sense, a moving moment. The transmission of power from one leader to another had taken place even as the departing chief, who had initiated the process, remained in the hot seat as the country's prime minister. It was also a mature moment, the way things ought to be done.
Before the new and disappointing secretary-general of the Labour Party shot his party's mouth on the subject of this transfer of power, he would have done well to compare and contrast it with Mr Mintoff's edition in 1985. Then, the parliamentary party and, indeed, all of Labour's supporters, were told: "I give unto you Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici" (in whom, later, he was to pronounce himself he was not pleased) and this without even the semblance of a by your leave. There was no other choice; not as far as Mr Mintoff was concerned anyway. A new leader was foisted on the party and if it was good enough for Mr Mintoff, why then, it was good enough for the party, for parliamentarians on his side of the House who had learned over a long period of time that what mattered was the leader's will.
It was from that aberration that Dr Fenech Adami saved Malta and, indeed, the Labour Party, since nobody from within it had the courage to question either Mr Mintoff's choice, still less his right to anoint his successor. Said secretary-general should also have compared the openness of the process that literally stalked Dr Gonzi's appointment and compared it with Dr Sant's election to Labour's leadership, 12 years ago. He should ask Mr Lino Spiteri which system he preferred: voting in the open, television cameras swooping and snooping all over the place; televised counting of votes so that spectators all over Malta were soon aware of Dr Gonzi's lead. What Mr Spiteri would not have given for that process to be in operation in 1992. It was the way things ought not to be done.
Mr Jason Micallef should also take further time off to compare and contrast what happened at PN headquarters, yesterday week, with what took place the day before that at his party's general conference. There, as four more candidates were elected to contest the EU parliamentary elections, no media stirred. Everything took place off stage, as it were.
For Mr Micallef to release the statement he did on behalf of the MLP is a sign of how divorced from political reality he and his party remain. This is a tragedy for the country. Here we are, on the eve of great things, with a hypnotised opposition like a rabbit caught by a car's headlights, an opposition slowly trudging its way backwards when it should be lighting the way forward and no longer seeing as in a mirror darkly.
Having said that, Dr Sant's invitation to Dr Gonzi was a good move, what Dr Gonzi described as "a good start". Perhaps Dr Sant wished to undo the public relations damage caused by Labour's official reaction to the transfer of leadership. Perhaps he noted that in the United States, President George W. Bush had congratulated his opponent when John Kerry won the nomination for the Democratic Party. Perhaps the leader of the opposition wishes to see the same rapprochement taking place that Dr Gonzi has placed high on his own agenda. Will we witness a sea change or is it the case that...
Plus ça change?
As the Nationalist Party in government girds itself for the challenges ahead - Dr Gonzi, Mr Dalli and Dr Galea saw these clearly during their bid for the top post - the opposition thrashes this way and that. We have an opposition that is truly visionless. It is so absorbed in its own inadequacy that on the day Malta joins Europe, its thoughts are fixed on May Day, an occasion that has become increasingly meaningless and irrelevant. It would matter less had the party not taken the EU on board.
Four, five weeks ago I intimated that Dr Sant's negative behaviour in the context of what is happening had a purpose. He may claim that there are many purposes behind it. None, I am certain, will contribute to his party's return to government. One of them, consciously or unconsciously, I think the former, is to diminish Malta's EU Day and the run-up top this event.
He will not dare to call on his colleagues and supporters to boycott the celebrations, of course. Look what happened when he did that to the l-Istrina event in 2002. Instead, he will employ spoiling tactics, call his supporters out on the streets in a show of - what? Walk to this spot or that with a "hundred volunteers" like a latter day echo, a small percentage in terms of numbers, a gulf in terms of moment, of Garibaldi's march in a show of - what?
The problem for the Labour Party is not merely Dr Sant. It is more serious. The party is choosing not only to ignore the only swathe of voters who can bring about its re-election. It has decided to antagonise this substantial group by becoming his clone. The deputy leaders have yet to make the impact implied by the promotion to their appointments. There seems to be no difference between pre-election Labour and the new set-up that was supposed to make us sit up and think. There is no indication of a new broom.
Post-election Labour wanted a change. There has been none. The party merely went through the motions. Once the gyrations stopped, we could discern new faces on the podium; no new minds, though, and nothing fresh has seeped out of their owners. Disturbingly, the opposite seems to be the case. It almost looks as if the Mintoff they derided in 1998, the saviour-traitor he has been adulated and castigated as being by the party that once almost bore his name, may yet be the ultimate victor.
I read somewhere that there has been a call for funds to pay for lost libel cases and for future ones that may go the same way. This is not the stuff of which a party seeking re-election is made. It is yet another demonstration of the wrong weapons being used and it brings to mind a swinging remark made by Iain MacLeod in the Sixties: "I cannot help it if every time the Opposition are asked to name their weapons they pick boomerangs." Having said all of which, it would be boorish not to acknowledge that the meeting proposed by Dr Sant was "a good start".
Gonzi's greatest temptation
The sentiments and their expression in the preceding piece is a luxury afforded only to commentators. They are forbidden to Dr Gonzi. He cannot regard the opposition in that light except interiorly. The temptation must be tremendous. The oft-heard remark that Dr Sant is the government's secret weapon sounds good. Dr Gonzi should regard it with the greatest trepidation, an apple that looks enticing and, given the genesis of this metaphor, a fruit earnestly to be left unconsumed.
If, as party leader and prime minister on the second day of spring Dr Gonzi were to act or conduct himself as if that remark were true, however true it may be, he would be committing political suicide. On the contrary, his task is to be aware, to beware that, whatever Dr Sant's weaknesses, the electorate out there is not that interested in the leader of the opposition. It is governments that lose elections. Oppositions help, of course, but it would be a droll political party that staked its future on such aid.
Still, every time the leader of the opposition boobs, Dr Gonzi will be wise to accept each gift with good grace and then, swiftly, keep his attention firmly fixed on what must be done to improve the Malta product; Malta Inc. as Dr Fenech Adami famously christened it in 1987. If Mrs Gonzi will allow him, and I am not sure she will, he should have a plaque hanging over his bed and it should read: I must regard today's hubris with circumspection because tomorrow it may be the turn of nemesis.
Incidentally, who would have thought Dr Gonzi would sport such massive side-burns on his wedding day. But there he was, with a buttonhole that had gone berserk, ears covered by hair and sideburns down to the jaw line. Mrs Gonzi, I know, will put her foot down over that plaque. I very much doubt she will threaten him that it is "either me or the plaque, choose". She will simply not hang the dammed thing. So, as it will not visually haunt him at the end of a day's work and the beginning of a new one, the new prime minister should see to it that the warning is mentally inscribed in his heart and in his mind.
He may think, and he would be right, that it was naïve and unfair on the part of the electorate to assume that once the elections were won, last year, a new dawn would spread its light over the land, every crooked path would be made straight and the lamb would sleep happily next to lions. The assumption played into the hands of the opposition. Nor, he knows, did Budget 2004, which was a necessary antidote, enthuse masses or sectors.
One silver lining in Dr Gonzi's sky is the fact that he will be given some sort of honeymoon before he embarks on the programme that he and his rivals to the leadership recognise as a requirement for the islands' future. He must capitalise on his popularity and, from what I have seen, has done so already with a shake-the-hands-of-everybody ceremony at party headquarters. What a kisser he has turned out to be. Nobody, it seemed, was safe. If he wasn't kissing the girls, he was hugging the men. Not Dr Fenech Adami's style, but a style that went down very well wherever he put it on.
Tinker, tailor... Cabinet-maker
His first test will be his re-fashioning of the Cabinet. Here, he is fortunate. Current holders will soon divest themselves of ministerial office, as is constitutionally required of them. Dr Gonzi writes on a new slate. People will be curious to see how he shares out the portfolios. They will wish to see the younger generation of MPs promoted to high office and new faces in health, social security, tourism and the environment where job descriptions need to be re-written. Those four appointments are high on his list. He regards them as a political priority. As priority, Education could not be in a safer pair of hands. Everything else is up for grabs.
It is probable that Mr Dalli has had enough of finance and will not mind, indeed may welcome, a stint in the foreign office. Dr Gonzi should try to persuade him to soldier on, to achieve the government's ambitious financial targets. Over-arching every ministry is the one that Mr Dalli currently leads. He should be proud to serve on, to build on what he has structured. His steady, directing hand is needed there far more than it is in the foreign ministry, where Dr Frendo could make a good job of the portfolio. It is the environment that must give Dr Gonzi pause.
In parenthesis: it was pointed out to me that in this newspaper, last Sunday, Mr Deidun expressed the opinion that this page "also lives up to its billing as a traditional anti-environmentalist column, treating us again to a derisive treatment of everything that has to do with green activists". This is vintage green language.
I do not know, nor can I say that I much care which garigue Mr Deidun inhabits. I do mind, however, that when he takes time to emerge from it he at least goes through the motion of honesty when he makes these silly, precocious assertions. Nor does the word environmentalist evoke in me as Mr Deidun falsely seems to think, "hare-brained visions of eccentric flower hippy types". If, however, he makes a point of uttering nonsense, it will certainly start to do so.
It is the environment that must give Dr Gonzi pause, the environment in all its manifestations: from street litter to sea pollution to countryside debaucheries, from car exhaust emissions to waste disposal and collection, from the guaranteed protection of village core areas to city embellishments and rehabilitation, from properly regulated construction sites small and large (developers must be dragged, howling, into the 21st century) to the protection of lapidary sites that have been formally listed, be they temple, palace or town house, from a less demented method of restructuring (as in Paceville) to a more ordered system of traffic flow when any structuring that infringes on road usage take place.
The environment is a quality of life, a way of life. Dr Gonzi is right to give it a special place in the operations of his government. He may think that the creation of environment wardens will do wonders for the country. He can be sure that funding will not be a problem. Fines alone will more than pay their way: fines for littering; fines for fouling pavements; fines for illegal buildings; fines for illegal constructions; fines for countryside dumpers; fines for unregulated industrial pollution; fines for motor car parking on beaches, rock and sand; fines for trampling down flowers and damaging railings (as happened in St Anne's Street during Carnival less than a fortnight ago); fines for roundabouts and public gardens that are not properly maintained; fines for many other illegal, anti-environmental pastimes that John and Jane indulge in. There is a surplus of funds to look after environment wardens.
And there is still my eulogy to Dr Fenech Adami to write, not to mention the "nuanced" (God help us) Mr Kerry.