Back to the dark ages

It seems far-fetched. It can be seen as implausible. It may be construed as scaremongering. I always scorned the idea that the Labour Party would revert to the dark ages of Maltese politics. But recent events in the GWU as well as the odd remarks by the leaders of the party and the union no longer make me comfortable pooh-poohing the possibility.

What used to make me so sure of my stance? No one can or will deny that Alfred Sant did his party and the country a great favour by ridding the MLP of the violent elements in its midst. Perhaps this remains his greatest political contribution to the country. To his credit he realised that with the erstwhile protected thugs around, the MLP was unelectable. On the other hand the MLP has never declared it will give up violence as a political tool.

What triggered my doubts, which are quickly turning into convictions? Take this remark from Dr Sant's article in The Times of August 16. Referring to someone from the tourist industry he stated: "We have disagreed in the past notably in the run-up to the EU referendum and 2003 election... History will judge who of us was 'right'". The Opposition Leader, even now, is still not convinced of the wisdom of the people's EU choice. It reminded me of his statement in front of the Ghaqda Veterani Laburisti where he declared that it wouldn't make sense to declare to leave the EU before we actually join.

Will sometime after 2008 be just right? How will he go about doing that, through another referendum? Or will it be the government's decision? More than once he has harped that the partnership solution was a better one. Who is going to restrain him? The deputy leader, who some months back glorified the 1970s and 1980s?

Another episode reminiscent of the old "glorified" era was the verbally violent and, in the circumstances, pretty dangerous outburst by Justine Caruana during the Labour general conference. Far more ominous was the approval, through applause, of the party leader. Does it mean that the MLP is no longer viewing violence as a vote loser? Or does it mean that the MLP has already become so arrogant in its belief that it will win the next election that it does not mind losing a few moderate votes so long as it re-embraces the violent extremists?

Are the changes in the union leadership and subsequent and threatened purges a portent of things to come?

Or why is Labour promising another tribunal to investigate injustices once we have the Ombudsman? In 1996 they set up a tribunal to right injustices perpetrated before the setting up of the office of the Ombudsman. But now? Have they not always praised the Ombudsman?

One might ask why events in the union should reflect upon the MLP. Few would deny not the affinity but the very same aims of the industrial and political arms of what was termed (a term that is being repeated nowadays) the movement of the left. There is Dr Sant's statement that the GWU would always remain the privileged union, implicitly relegating other unions to non-privileged status with all that this entails. Most other unions straightaway recognised the threat and protested. Their protestations only brought a weak attempt at explanation but the statement was not withdrawn.

Naturally, the GWU accepted the epithet as a compliment. And to prove its capability in hurrying the dawn of an old age, it announced a programme of taking to the streets even threatening to bring down the government there and then. What loyalty! It is strange how public opinion took this threat lightly instead of condemning it out of hand. Perhaps the small crowd that turned out to buttress Tony Zarb's threat lulled the people that after all it is an empty threat.

But the threat is real. One has only to read the union's daily and its Sunday sister. The MLP has no daily. It does not need one. L-orizzont does the party's job admirably. The persistent, strident anti-government position could not be bettered if the paper was owned and edited directly by the MLP. Read its editorials and see for yourselves if they ever admit to government doing anything right. Consider the significance of the banner headlines whenever bad news is reported such as the closing down of a factory. You could perceive the glee and the rubbing of hands.

On the other hand good news is reported a day or two late and buried in an obscure corner of the inner pages, unless there is a negative point to be emphasised, such as that the pharmaceutical industry will not last for ever. Recently, the paper almost weekly declared that the price of bread was likely to go up the week after. Only to fall into deep silence once the government announced that it was in a position to absorb the justified increases in costs. At the beginning of last week it proudly announced that no low-cost airline had taken up MIA's offer. What has it to say now that two of the foremost low-cost airlines have applied for the government's offer? Perhaps they are waiting and hoping that no deal is struck? As if it is not the workers who are the first and the most to suffer when jobs are lost!

After all what can you expect from a leadership that is ready to tear their own? In last Sunday's It-Torca, Geitu Mercieca nonchalantly wrote that some columnists took a stand against the union because they had been prevented from using the union media to attack the MLP leadership. Why should Labour sympathisers not criticise the leadership? Why should it worry a union man were it not that the interests of the MLP are paramount for the union?

For those younger than my generation it bears repeating that the MLP was handed power in 1971 not without a little help from the union that had ordered an indefinite industrial action at the dockyard. No need to say that the strike ended as soon as power was achieved. The workers got nothing but they were harangued and told that you don't strike against your own government.

Are we in for a repeat performance if Labour is voted in?

Far-fetched? Implausible? Scaremongering? We'd better be vigilant.

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health.