Inappropriate, but there you are

It would be ironic to the nth degree' I wrote a fortnight ago, "if we were to regard this election as anything but a political expression in favour of the government's decades-long, hard-fought battle for Malta's full involvement in the European dimension... incongruous if (Dr Gonzi's party) candidates did not win the majority of the five seats being contested; absurd and inappropriate if those who never wanted this intimate dimension for Malta had any of their representatives voted into a parliament they fought a referendum and a couple of general elections to prevent us joining."

The ironic and incongruous, the absurd and inappropriate coalesced in a firework of magnificent contradictions yesterday week.

From five candidates elected to represent us in the European Parliament, three were Labour Party nominees. It was one for the books.

Simon Busuttil's 59,000 first count votes (18,000 more than the awesome quota of 41,000 required to gain a seat) was a personal triumph. He was 22,000 votes ahead of Joseph Muscat, who in turn outstripped his nearest buddy in the Labour Party by 11,000. He was 36,000 votes ahead of Arnold Cassola, who, ultimately, failed to gain a seat for Alternattiva Demokratika. This, in turn, did for the Nationalist Party and saved Dr Sant's political skin. More ironical than that it could not get.

For its part, the Labour Party sees itself through a mirror faultily as the largest political party in Malta. The results that emerged yesterday week had a hubristic effect on Dr Sant, who did not hesitate to exploit the outcome. It would have been surprising had he not done so.

Alternattiva sees things differently, through a dark mirror, rosily. Last Friday, Dr Harry Vassallo wrote about the great Green raspberry. He pointed at Labour's share of the vote, 48 per cent, and remarked that it "polled 14,000 fewer votes than it did in its crushing failure last year". God knows I hold no truck with Dr Sant but this is elision at its best. It was not as bad, however, as Dr Vassallo's implication (how swiftly he has become a politician whose words have to be examined carefully) that a block vote was in operation by the PN. Had this been the case the AD candidate would not have collected over 5,000 preferences from PN candidates by the final count.

Dr Vassallo's claim that PN voters had not been allowed to give a No. 9 preference to Arnold Cassola. was not borne out by the numbers that did not even wait for the No. 9 option. Still, a few hundred words later he openly acknowledged: "Of course most of the votes that came to the Greens must have come from the pro-EU camp. Of course the vast majority are ex-Nationalists, disgruntled Nationalists and Nationalists spitting mad at their own leadership."

Having referred to "idiot spinners responsible for PN PR", "what remains of the PN" and asked whether the PN will "lynch (Joe Saliba) for the idiocy of block voting the MLP into a majority", Dr Vassallo declared: "...the Greens have won a spectacular victory and we should be magnanimous as no party has ever been". If that was magnanimity spare us his comments in adversity.

His article ended with this enigmatic assertion: "The MLP have been Europeanised to the full and the Greens have come of age. Our common future beckons."

The hunters' man received a mere 3,000 plus (where have all the hunters gone?) and Imperium Europa's Norman Lowell, a sliver over half that amount. Given his platform, this was 1,600 votes too many. (The television station on which he appeared was fined Lm150, a penalty it could contest, for allowing him to encourage criminal behaviour in broadcasts it carried on April 29, May 6 and June 1 and 8. The fine is as risible as the Broadcasting Authority's pathetic failure to act as far back as April 29. It must know that freedom of expression embraces the obligation to say or do nothing that threatens the right to freedom from incitement).

Questions

The Nationalist party failed to run a good campaign. Its leader was made to go through a gruelling programme without sufficiently good backing and with an innocuous advertising campaign. Dr Gonzi was let down in part by the back-up, in other part by the script, in other by the simple fact that he found himself in the deep end immediately after he won the leadership. He also happened to be in the driving seat when at least 20,000 voters decided the time was ripe to register a protest vote. Still, campaign or no campaign, the result was written in the stars even as the race for the five EP seats came under starter's orders.

Psephology, I suppose, is in the mind of the beholder. Ranier Fsadni's expression in his weekly contribution to The Times last Thurday was a model of intelligence and common sense. I will restrict myself to remark that all three groups, not, as seems to have been the fashionable reaction, the government only, have to ask and answer several questions before they face the electorate in four years' time.

The Nationalist Party has to ask itself why the government is currently viewed with displeasure by a number of those who voted it into power last year? For the moment all is embarrassment. The Labour Party needs to consider why, for all that it won three seats to the Nationalist Party's two, its success was not reflected in a higher percentage of the votes than it collected at the last elections?

For the moment all is rapture. Alternattiva Demokratika has to analyse honestly the source of its success at these polls; for the moment all is euphoria.

It is self-evident to most that the Nationalist Party was deserted by genuine and/or faute de mieux supporters who wished to jolt the government by casting their vote in favour of Arnold Cassola. It is only in this context that the AD candidate can claim to have bucked the trend of the Green parties in Europe, where, apart from Germany, they failed to make any headway. Au contraire, as Dr Fsadni pointed out, it was the Green result there that prevented the Greens from plummeting to 3.82 per cent of the EP seats - a far cry from the strange opinion expressed, also in The Times, that "Greens are gaining ground all over the civilised world...."

A bit of a roam

Allow me a ramble. I was struck by what Arnold Cassola wrote a couple of days before the polls. For one: "You have long realised that three parties are better than two". More than 200,000 of us have not realised this, actually, but it is clear that these elections have put into Alternattiva's mind the idea that it is now a major political force. The party is acting as though the vote garnered yesterday week was more than a protest vote and a genuine expression in its favour as a major contender.

I am not in the business of crystal-gazing but should the party go for the political jugular in 2008, which it intends to do on the basis that it will not lose that protest vote, I am persuaded it will be its own throat that may be at risk. Having said that I must add that it is all right for me to sound sanguine about this. The luxury is not one the Nationalist Party can afford..

No less contentious: "...an MEP has to work for all and sundry, irrespective of political beliefs (my emphasis) and must adopt an approach which goes beyond the party's interests and" (dear God!) "put Malta first and foremost" - where have we heard that before? And if an MEP acts "irrespective of political beliefs" what on earth are political beliefs for? What does it actually mean to act "irrespective of political beliefs" anyway? Does not a Green MEP act out of political belief? For that matter, does not a Social Democrat or a Conservative?

Alternattiva has its own set of beliefs. Nor, to judge from the accusation hurled in the direction of the major parties by Dr Vassallo that these were dinosaurs and "moral dwarves", is it averse to basic politicking in the party's interest. The simple truth is that when the chips are down and all protestations to the contrary, the politician in Opposition accepts, ruefully, that the national interest is that which is expressed by the party in government, which in turn claims for itself the task of expressing of the will of the majority.

This does not prevent him working against the national interest thus stated, in the sense that his version of it differs from that of the majority. He sees his job as a tool for casting off the minority status under which he labours to become the new majority at the next elections when it can declare what the national interest is. It would be marvellous were this not to be the case, but barring exceptional circumstances like the threat of war, or a national disaster, it is the case.

Getting back to work

The only watershed in the European elections as far as Malta is concerned must surely be the triumph of contradiction. How else can an electorate return three members to parliament from a party that did everything it could for us not to have such a luxury? Had Labour renamed itself as the Labour Eurosceptic party people would have readily understood the outcome, but it did not do so. Dr Sant won an election on representation in the European Parliament in 2004 after he failed to persuade the electorate that we should not be in Europe in 2003 and for many years before that. It is only that protest vote that makes what is unclear, clear.

That vote has given Dr Sant a much-needed, if artificial, boost. It was one devoutly to be wished, at least by him and those who resisted the demand for a new leader in the wake of electoral failure, last year. It goes without saying that he will exploit his change of fortune for all this fortune is worth.

If he does so by not co-operating with Project EU, by refusing to discuss sensibly and intelligently pensions and welfare in a way that points to a solution, by sacrificing the truth for political ends, that fortune will soon be dissipated. MLP secretary-general Jason Micallef spoke of the satisfaction that at the EP elections Labour's core votes remained loyal. That limited objective is not enough by far to win the next general election. The party has to attract thousands of others for that. What Dr Sant says and how he acts will settle that the outcome of the next elections.

The government may take comfort from the fact that centre-right parties won more than a third of the 732 seats in the European Parliament. In the national context, any such reassurance is scant. Dr Gonzi has understood the larger message. His government's performance is all that matters between now and 2000 and eight. Now that the demands made on his time by the EP elections are over, it is obvious he has a number of papers in his action and pending trays that needs his attention.

When he has dealt with them he may think it useful to bring his mind to bear on three main issues. In alphabetical order these are: bureaucracy (a leaner, more efficient force at the service of business and ordinary humans like you and me; defrocked of the red tape that currently embalms it); employment (where is Malta Enterprise going with this?) and environment (whether it is Maghtab, or Mnajdra, which Dr Gonzi has now solved and received very little credit for so doing, or road-building, road closures and site development).

Of roads and project management

For today, let's take a stab at roads and things. Here, despite the tens of millions of liri that have been spent and continue to be spent, the user feels let down. This is an odd failure on the part of any administration. Nothing keeps government more in the public eye, apart from taxation, than matters to do with road construction, road repair, road upgrading and site development. Nothing should be tackled with more regard for users, from sensible rerouting of traffic to the creation of minimum inconvenience.

Take Paceville. Nobody can deny the before and after effect. The problem is that the work was carried out with such slowness and maximum inconvenience, the ratio of approval when it is completed will be in inverse proportion to the facelift administered. Now that he has taken on urban development and roads, it is the task of the young and energetic Mr Mugliett to make sure that this public relations failure is not repeated.

Dr Gonzi must emphasise in Cabinet the dire necessity, if the Nationalist Party is to win the next election, of disciplining ministries and departments into delivering from planning stage to execution to accomplishment. Anything done in the public eye, whether minor road repairs or major road construction is begging and failing to be a feather in the government's cap.

Roads and urban development hold one of the keys to this government's future. When the Tigné and Manoel Island developments enter the phase of connection with the world outside, this business of limiting nuisance and annoyance to the general public needs to be given the utmost priority. Mr Mugliett could do worse than invite building contractors and architects for a coffee to explain in very direct terms that they have to act European now, or else.

12/6 came just in time for the government to recreate itself in some areas, improve in others and in others still to carry on with the good work. Its task is to identify each of these areas accurately. Ministers with no stomach for the challenge should apply for another job.

Love and Death

Last year, Chaucer Press published a new edition of John Gash's excellent book, Caravaggio. This year, on Tuesday at 7 p.m., to be precise, at the Caraffa Stores on the Vittoriosa Waterfront, Professor John Gash, a senior lecturer in History of Art at the University of Aberdeen and a specialist in Baroque Art, will deliver a tantalising talk: "Shielded from Love and Death: a Caravaggesque allegory in Mdina".

I know. Italy is playing Bulgaria that evening at 8.45 p.m. For that reason, kick-off time at Caraffa Stores is 7 p.m. razor-sharp. The evening will end not a microsecond after 8. Football enthusiasts worried about missing out on the talk or a minute of the game should hurl vexation out the window, They will easily and comfortably watch and listen to both.