A non-event

Party conferences or general councils are normally important events in local politics. This is more so in the case of parties in opposition. While in government, the party necessarily takes a back seat. Policies are implemented by the Cabinet and general conferences more often than not are used as vehicles for ministers to clarify, enlighten and elucidate on current policies and those to be implemented in the immediate future. They are also used to vindicate and justify present and past measures.

In the case where the party is in opposition, party conferences are usually livelier events. They serve to imbue party activists with a sense of greater commitment and hope that the kingdom is nigh. But, especially, they are addressed at the electorate at large, mainly at the thinking, floating voter. The ones who can make a difference! The party leadership announces alternative policies especially in those areas where the government is perceived to have failed.

Judged by this criterion, last weekend's Labour Party general conference failed miserably. Not that the leadership has not done its best. But its best is simply not good enough. The documents presented for the consideration of the conference were rich in rhetoric and very poor in substance. The fact remains that the leadership is not sure of itself, not sure of its strategy and so fails to inspire confidence in its membership and less in outsiders. Thus the conference could not but become a non-event. The message passed on is that the present Labour Party, even when doing its best, is no alternative to the present government.

As the conference proceeded and its certain failure became evident, Alfred Sant, as usual, compounded his problems by launching ferocious attacks on those who dared criticise the documents as well as the independent media, calling them snakes and vipers.

But nothing proves better the inanity of this conference than the low profile given to it by the Labour press, official or otherwise. On Saturday the faithful l-orizzont dedicated its first page to its month-old crusade to create the impression that there is a gas crisis in Malta. On Sunday its sister paper It-Torca switched from gas to oil. The report of the conference was buried in the inner pages. Even the official MLP weekly KullHadd did not deem the conference important enough to give it first page status. It was only on Monday that l-orizzont put the story on the first page, as a sort of an afterthought. It indirectly tried to justify the low profile the Labour press gave to the conference by stating that though there was no euphoria it was a staid and serious affair. I don't suppose Dr Sant counts the editors of these papers among the snakes and vipers for neglecting this non-event.

In his closing speech, Dr Sant demonstrated once more what a Labour critic of his a few weeks back called "his utter lack of leadership qualities". When he could not convincingly defend the significance of the documents, he savagely turned on his critics. Naturally, one has to hear Dr Sant because the Labour press played down and camouflaged his tirades, as they have increasingly been doing lately.

Some apologists try to prop up Dr Sant by stating that these are mere gaffes uttered in the heat of the moment. I beg to differ. Dr Sant is no novice to politics; if anything he is one of the most able wordsmiths.

But the most sinister statement during his closing speech was when, in the same breath that he paid lip service to merit, he promised, to the most enthusiastic applause of his audience, that the next Labour government will look after its own. In 1987 the Nationalist government, coming in after 16 years under the most discriminatory, oppressive regime known in Malta, had established a judicial mechanism to redress the most serious injustices. Later, it set up the office of Ombudsman. In 1996 Dr Sant's government set up its own tribunal to examine alleged injustices perpetrated until the setting up of the Ombudsman. Understandable! In fact, the returning Nationalist government retained the Injustices Tribunal. But how can Dr Sant now justify further discrimination? The Ombudsman has been doing his work uninterruptedly. When are we going to stop this charade?

This is no gaffe. Dr Sant has written similar utterances over the last few years. In spite of his post-1996 assurance that "his would be a government for all Maltese", his short-lived administration was no stranger to discrimination. Limiting myself to the Ministry of Health, in one single day in February 1997 over 120 transfers were effected in Mount Carmel Hospital. Though an almost forgotten case it happened just before the 1998 election. So "all Maltese" would better heed these utterances for what they are, real threats.

It is no coincidence either that recently one of the deputy leaders praised the autocratic Labour administrations of the 1970s and 1980s declaring that Labourites had nothing to be ashamed of. This all points to a definite decision made within the party.

Dr Sant's weakness was also revealed in the case of John Attard Montalto. During the week he defended the absence of the leader of the Labour MEPs from a crucial vote in the European Parliament. He immediately changed tack once he sensed the anger of the Labour delegates at the conference, and by praising only the other two Labour MEPs not so indirectly dropped his erstwhile defence. Is he leading or being led? I ask, has Labour now lost its majority representation at the European Parliament?

A Labour delegate logically complained that they had elected three members and they are represented by just two. Likewise the electorate may wonder how, while the government has successfully convinced the EU that in order for a country to function effectively it needs at least six seats, can Malta be effective with just four members.

The conference may also be remembered for the challenge thrown out at the Prime Minister daring him to adopt proposals Labour has made in the tourism and environmental spheres. Is it possible that the Leader of the Opposition is not aware that some of his proposals have already been realised and others are in the pipeline? Or is it that he wants to take credit for the government's achievements?

Truly, Dr Sant is Labour's problem.

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health.