Lilliputian politics

The year is still very young but we are already being subjected to the first mega controversy. The Labour leadership is seeking to create a storm in a teacup by focusing on the published statistics. In reality, the opposition has been abusing statistics for many years. It quotes them as vindication of its positions when it suits it but in the same breath berates them when they bear good tidings.

Take the employment statistics. The ETC and the department it replaced had for donkey's years been compiling its own statistics which now are published by the NSO. They provide us with a headcount of the employed and the unemployed. On accession to the EU, the National Statistics Office, now autonomous of the government, has also been conducting a survey in line with the requirements of Eurostat. Larger countries would find our system probably too cumbersome and impractical to adopt and they have to rely on surveys. Besides, the survey is conducted on persons between 15 and 65 of age while we know that 15-year-olds are not allowed to work and the retiring age is still 61. So you expect to have widely differing results. And they do. Naturally, the ETC exercise, being a headcount, is far more reliable. Since the ETC statistics are not bleak enough for Labour, they quote in sham horror but barely concealed glee the Labour survey statistics. Even though they are compiled and published by the same NSO which they have lately savagely derided so profusely.

As the NSO was required to compile the survey by Eurostat, so it was required to revise GDP data since 1995. After verifying data on ESA95 lines, GDP statistics were revised downwards for the years 1996 to 2003 and upwards as from 2004. Now the Labour leadership could not allege that this was done on partisan grounds. The period 1996 to 2003 included just two years of Labour government out of a total period of eight. So Alfred Sant accused the NSO of fabricating statistics so that only Lawrence Gonzi's government would be put in a better light. Probably in their wisdom they believed that such a line of attack would have the added benefit of antagonising some Nationalists.

What is the motivation for this vitriolic attack on the NSO, particularly since Gordon Cordina has taken over as CEO? The MLP knows that the economy is definitely on an upward trend and it is expected that it will continue to grow once government finances have been put on a solid basis as promised in 2003.

Henceforth, the government has more elbow room to maneouvre and sustain the economy as amply shown in the last budget. It will have more funds to sustain social policy.

Restructuring, public and private, is now giving results though it is not complete yet and the economy is creating jobs. Under this government Malta has successfully withstood the double wham of globalisation and rocketing oil prices. Not without pain! Not that the future will not bring with it new challenges! But, if anything, the Gonzi government has proved itself in adversity. It has shown that it could focus, prioritise and find solutions. It has shown that it could withstand pressure and criticism, that it could face loss of popularity in the interest of the national good.

In this scenario, the return of Labour to government is not a foregone conclusion any longer. So in Labour's way of thinking its dimming hope, since statistics will be a portent of more good news, is to discredit them. It may have thought that it had a winning card in the appointment of Dr Cordina as CEO since the latter had openly supported Malta's bid for EU membership. Again, subliminally belying Labour's European credentials! It has forgotten its recent bid for the middle class vote and went back to the lowest common denominator.

Dr Sant sounded incensed that his criticism of the NSO was taken as a rearguard, underhand attempt to block the adoption of the euro. But is this not more than a fair suspicion? Dr Sant did not change his cue on this issue because he was blinded and converted on his way to Damascus. He explicitly claimed he had changed his stance in the national interest not because he was convinced of the advisability of the changeover. In fact, the true reason is electoral convenience. Most probably, he was convinced by Labour apologists and insiders that he was committing the same strategic blunder he had done in the 2003 election. He was providing an electoral platform to the PN to the eventual detriment of the party he leads, on sufferance or otherwise.

Probably this storm in a teacup issue is already fizzling out. Already former Labour stalwarts have warned the MLP that it has taken a dangerous road. Although the accusations during Charles Mangion's press conference were as wild as ever, the technical report was a tame affair. In fact, it demanded a number of explanations.

What can explain this difference in substance and approach? The answer probably lies in the fact that this technical report was meant for Eurostat while the stridency of the conference was meant for local consumption. Yet, does not the sending of the report to Eurostat justify the suspicion that Labour still harbours the hope that the Commission may still stop us from joining the eurozone by next January 1? Why did it not wait for the explanations it demanded?

Is this the Labour leadership that considers itself a viable alternative government, aspiring to be a valid player on the European stage? Or is this a Lilliputian way of doing politics. For those who may not have read Jonathan Swift's satire on 18th century England, the people of Lilliput were a united, happy people. One issue divided them and consumed their energies. They violently disagreed from which end an egg should be cracked.

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health, the Elderly and Community Care.