Several climaxes, elusive catharsis

The key to the drama at the Malta Labour Party extraordinary general conference, its politics of emotion, is that it had several climaxes but no catharsis - for any of the various kinds of Labourites following the conference from within and outside. There was no purging relief from the riddles at the heart of the conference: If the party we love seems to be moving towards another 1996, how come this conference gives us the gut-wrenching feeling we had in 1998? If we have beaten the Nationalists three times in a row, how come the victors are meeting to adopt the losers' policy?

Framing the conference in this way might seem to ignore two things. First, the conference also approved the MLP's Plan For The Economic And Social Revival Of Malta And Gozo. There are interesting points in the plan, some of which could advance the public discussion of what this country needs by way of reform; they are interesting enough to merit separate discussion. But much of the plan hangs on unspecified schemes and incentives, too vague to hijack attention from the full-blooded discussion of the proper attitude to take towards the EU's constitutional treaty.

Second, by authorising the parliamentary group to vote for the constitutional treaty, the delegates were helping the country resolve the riddle of Malta - the maverick reputation that still hangs like a faint smell to the country's name, having rapidly changed positions on membership twice in the 1990s. A tongue-in-cheek guide on the EU member states published this summer characterises Malta as the most likely to leave the EU first. Yesterday's vote in Parliament is a step that the country needed to take to wash off the odour.

But for most of the MLP delegates last weekend, the most perceptible odour in the stifling unconditioned air was the whiff of the blood and guts spilled in Parliament in 1998. That year was invoked and alluded to time and again, as was the gutted feeling of seeing a former leader weigh into the present leadership for betraying party values. Delegate after delegate stepped up to the podium to talk of pain, wounds and self-inflicted suffering.

But if Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici's angry arguments, his voice too sometimes breaking under the weight of his accusations, hurt so much, it was because the large majority of delegates share his disdain for the constitutional treaty. Back in 2002 Alfred Sant had told them that the draft Constitution was (to cite The Times, October 30) "bad news for those who believed that EU member states should retain their sovereign decision-making rights as much as possible" (and indeed the treaty does strengthen the voting power of big states in the Council and does strengthen the Commission). During the referendum campaign, George Vella had said the common foreign policy would have (according to The Malta Independent, February 11, 2003) "a drastic effect on the country's economy and reputation" (the treaty does envisage a future Foreign Minister for the entire Union).

The vast majority of delegates justified the vote as a necessary step that needed to be taken to ensure victory in 2008; it was something to be swallowed, even if (as some delegates candidly admitted) it was not easy to do. It was not so much the treaty that was debated but whether the MLP should vote for it.

The eventual conference vote, with 14 per cent voting for Dr Mifsud Bonnici's motion, raises the question as to whether this percentile is also reflected in the country. But we should not forget a different kind of treaty-sceptic voice that was not heard in this conference: the voice of those pro-EU Labourites, unconvinced by "partnership" in 2003, who are confident enough of their pro-European credentials to have wanted a critical Socialist appraisal of the treaty.

Dr Vella did speak with some approval of the treaty. To speak critically of it would have been placed in doubt the European credentials the party was trying to establish. But this is not because criticism of the treaty itself is anti-EU: consider how Joanna Drake's credentials were never in doubt, despite her publicly stated position that she did not think the EU should have a Constitution; or consider the government's nominee at the Convention, Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, who has recently published a paper containing his criticisms of the Convention and the draft treaty it produced.

But this kind of engagement by Dr Sant or Dr Vella would have been prohibitive for the party: it would have been taken as an indication not of feeling at home enough to criticise but of a dubious acceptance of EU membership. As a result of this unofficial prohibition, there are many indignant social democrats out there.

Whether this means that Dr Mifsud Bonnici is right to argue that the decision will lose votes rather than gain them is another matter. I believe the leadership is correct to believe that voting against the treaty would have been more harmful to their electoral chances. But the party's approval of the treaty has its costs, too.

Disaffected Nationalists looking for another party to vote for must be wondering: if the MLP leadership can shift position on the treaty without barely an acknowledgement that that is what it is doing, is there anything else that they are saying now that might shift after another election? If that question lingers, the MLP's elusive catharsis might be a sign of serious trouble.

ranierfsadni@europe.com