Labour's lost decade

In such terms two Sundays ago Lino Spiteri, a respected stalwart of the Maltese left, bewailed Labour's past decade. He accused the leadership that by its ineptitude it kept the party in opposition unnecessarily. He again averred that what the (MLP's extraordinary general) conference sealed could have been done on the (EU accession) referendum's morrow thus giving a fair chance to his party winning the following election. This will be always a debatable point but one which will never be proven. The opportunity was there but it will never return to prove those who hold this position right or wrong.

I think, and so do many others, that suddenly reversing course would have done more harm than good to the Labour cause. The strategy and the way Alfred Sant had based the opposition to Malta's adherence to the grand European project was the real culprit. Labour wrongly formulated its position as a matter of principle and painted the canvas in "God forbid" terms. How could Labour supporters change their position within a month after being subjected to a decade and more of anti Europeanism? If Malta was to be ruined by enrolling in Satan's club the correct position was to maintain its opposition and open the eyes of the electorate. This is Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici's logical if misguided stance.

Europe became Labour's millstone because its position was out of synch with the times, it ran against the tide and their tactics appealed to the people's emotions, fears and phobias rather than to their reason.

This lack of vision and ability to read the signs of the times was always Labour's Achilles' heel. History itself attests that on the great constitutional issues Labour was always wrong. Back in the 1950s, when we were campaigning for independence and the whole world was ridding itself of colonialism, the MLP was endeavouring to integrate Malta with the colonial power. However, the Nationalist Party did not change its position because the people had voted in Dom Mintoff on the integration ticket with a redoubtable majority.

The notion that a party has to change its beliefs to bow to the people's will is sheer nonsense. You accept the right of the people to choose and the incoming government to implement its policies but you are still free to convince the people of your position. That is, if you yourself are convinced! Mr Mintoff did that after the integration debacle and convinced his supporters that the switch was essential not by telling them that it was necessary to win the government but by persuading them that that was the correct policy if Malta were to prosper. But it proves the point that Labour is always at least a decade late.

Now, had the Labour leadership merely wasted its own decade it would have been no great loss to the country. Had it been a minority party only a handful would have noticed. The crucial point is that Labour's wasted decade was harmful to Malta's interests. The MLP is the potential alternative government and its policies can harm the country even when in opposition let alone when in government. We must not forget that Dr Sant froze Malta's application to join the EU immediately he took the reins of power in 1996. This harmed Malta's interests on the international scene not only in political but also in economic terms.

Malta was seen abroad as unstable, unsure of what it wants, continually switching off and on. It contributed not a little to the economic mess and stagnation of the Labour years in power. This is not to say that Dr Sant's government did not have the right to act as it did. It was implementing its mandate. But the decision was still wrong. It took supreme efforts of diplomacy to convince Europe, once we were shortly afterwards and providentially returned to power, that we had the people behind us and that Malta would not switch off again. At least now Labour's new position will put minds at rest on this score.

But Labour's opposition was harmful in more insidious ways. The MLP was the only major party in all applicant countries that opposed joining Europe. All applicant countries' adherence was a foregone conclusion. Malta was the odd one out. This created a climate of instability, which contributed to a decrease in foreign and domestic investment and, hence, to the slow economic growth which it is only now that we are recovering from.

We had to fight tooth and nail, day by day to achieve Malta's rightful place in Europe, the threat coming from within rather than from without. Had not there been this utter obstructive opposition, had we been more comfortable of the final outcome we could have prepared ourselves better, we could have addressed some of the present restructuring years ago. Those who today blame us for failing to tackle the challenges then forget that politics is the art of the possible. Successful politics is a question of getting the right priorities. Joining Europe was then the supreme priority. It was the sine qua non of Malta's future political and economic development. No sacrifice was disproportionate in the achievement of our aims.

Nor can Dr Sant's harmful politics of convenience, dressed as pragmatism, be restricted to one issue. Space limits me from an adequate exposition of the damage perpetuated on the economy by his opposition to VAT. The issue apparently was beneficial to Labour in the sense that it won them the election. Thousands deserted us believing they would get rid of the hated cash registers. In reality the issue lost Labour an able Finance Minister and dealt Dr Sant a mortal blow to his credibility due to the financial mess it exacerbated. In the process it did immeasurable harm to the Maltese economy as well as to the culture of fiscal morality. The U-turn in 2003 did not repair this harm.

One can say that all this is normal in a democracy. Democracy thrives on the contrast and clash of ideas. A political party is not only entitled but is in duty bound to change or update its policies. Otherwise it becomes atrophied and the people will consign it to the dump of history. But to change out of convenience is utterly wrong. The leadership itself has used convenience in the shape of the carrot of victory to persuade the delegates of the wisdom of ratifying its position. Convenience is no substitute for conviction. The albatross has not been removed. It will come back to haunt them. Cracks are already visible. One only has to read Joe Brincat's article in the latest edition of The Sunday Times.

Dr Deguara is Minister for Health.