Political sunburn

Nicolas Sarkozy won the right to be the next President of France, as the opinion polls had suggested, prompting similar anticipation in this column on Sunday. What could not be anticipated was that, before he could flutter his quasi-Presidential eyes more than a few times, he would hop along to a short break under the warm sun of our very own islands.

All visitors are welcome. So was the French President-elect. I do not believe that, as some suggested, he came to Malta to make up for the fact that, through an oversight, he had not included Malta when he propounded his idea of setting up a Mediterranean Union to include everybody else in the Med and also a few countries beyond. But, by coming here, he enabled the Maltese Islands to be projected in his own country as the backdrop to the reports about his holiday.

Mr Sarkozy was surely entitled to take a break and recharge his battery with Med-Maltese solar energy. Nevertheless, he was immediately criticised in various quarters of his country. To such an extent, in fact, that he was forced to make his first defensive reaction following his clear victory, pointing out that he still had a few days to become President and to buckle down to start attempting to tackle the problems he was to inherit from the outgoing Jacques Chirac.

Whether, thereby, the French President-elect mollified his critics is another matter. One reaction from an academic and a writer of note, which reached me via a mutual friend, read as follows:

"When I heard that our new President was on Maltese soil, his choice was pleasant to me. But knowing that he is on a luxurious boat, I am ashamed. Our country is going through a severe crisis: unemployment, lack of lodgings for the surge of immigrants, discontent - if not hatred and violence - in the suburbs, lack of confidence in ourselves and so on and so forth. We need someone strong, determined, efficient, honest. His programme sounds interesting but the way he behaves on the very first days is a great threat. Please tell me how the people in Malta are reacting. If you have some clippings of papers, thank you in advance."

I doubt that the people of Malta will react much or at all, being absorbed as we are with the shenanigans in our own little political world. The term "to react", of course, has a totally different meaning to the fulsome reports carried in our media, adorned with details of little relevance to French politics or Mr Sarkozy's contribution to our tourism industry.

The particular French observer whose views reached me also had a few words to say about Ségolène Royal, the Socialist hopeful whom Mr Sarkozy defeated on Sunday. "As to our female candidate," wrote the academic, "she is a fantastic character, but (almost) nobody from her Socialist Party supported her. Her two rivals, who have a long political experience, Strauss-Kahn and Fabius, could not reconcile themselves to helping her.

"Their party is split (even for the referendum on Europe). She managed to have passionate followers among the young mostly, but the majority of voters did not trust the feasibility of all her promises. She is very independent and speaks in her single name, hence jealousy from her elders. But somehow she started something new perhaps, with openings. I do not know what will come out of it."

Now that, I venture to suggest, is more likely to strike a few of our own observers although some of them might conclude that French of infighting is nothing compared to the way politics is acted in Malta...

Contagious poisoning

The Nationalists are having a right royal time reporting stories of leakages from, and divisions within the MLP. It is not easy to sift the truth from the inevitable spin, except for one particular, truly political factor. Which is that, what-ever else may be rumbling in the bowels of the Labour Party, it does not reflect different or opposed stances on principles and issues.

The party appears to be as one on issues, which is not surprising since there are no longer deep issues of principle, tactics or strategy, let alone ideology, that can cause friction within any party. The only factor that conceivably could create intra-party friction actually lies on the Nationalist side.

With the decision of Dr Josie Muscat, the ex-Nationalist MP, to try to establish a new party, it is the innards of the PN that must be rumbling somewhat. Nationalist grandees would be as aware of what is going on as those of us who can observe from the outside, at arm's length or thereabouts.

Dr Muscat has been dissatisfied for quite some time with the actions and record of the Nationalist government. That dissatisfaction predated his decision to contest the local council election in Marsascala as an independent. Quite before that he would be heard saying that what we need is a new party.

PN big shots and smaller ones too would also know that Josie has attracted some disgruntled Nationalists. They may include a few who are ready to bankroll part of the adventure, such as when it comes to paying for advertisements once the electoral campaign begins in earnest, assuming that the new party has indeed been set up by then.

It is also no secret that the promoters have been trying to tap into the wider Labour fold, in an effort to attract candidates who are of social-democratic persuasion, so as to give the touted new party a bipolar look. It does not appear that they are having, or may be expected to have, much success in that regard.

Should the new party be set up, therefore, whatever votes it garners would come in the main from Nationalists who remain unhappy with the government's performance, plus some new voters willing to experiment away from the two big parties and the Alternattiva Demokratika minnow. Most of the votes that would go to the big party, therefore, would be to the cost of Nationalist Party. Whether one is talking in terms of scores, hundreds or a few thousands, the number will handicap the Nationalist Party.

The minders of the PN media would be discussing such an eventuality, but they would not dream of letting it be aired in public in their part of our little world of Don Camillo's twin sister. Much rather focus on what they get to know about the goings on and other to-dos within the MLP.

When, on top of all that, there are anonymous letters doing the rounds, pouring dirt on this, that and/or the other, the spinners go ballistic and orgasmic, at one and the same time.

Anonymous letter-writers are to be found everywhere. In my time in politics I received poisoned missives from beings, for want of a worse word, who purported to be good Catholics and wrote to insult me in the name of God, ignoring the blasphemy inherent in their actions. Letters about my physical difference, too, were fairly common. If I remember correctly, I was also targeted anonymously in the 1992 MLP leadership contest.

Through time I learned to ignore anonymous letters, classifying their authors as sick and sickening. One has to be sickly to lack the courage of saying what he thinks about another face to face, and very sick indeed to invent and throw dirt at another person anonymously.

Surprisingly, I have also received one or two letters regarding the collection of memories I published some weeks ago, surprisingly because their authors could have joined those who, red, blue or green in the face, have expressed their disagreement with me. Those letters too went into the bin the moment I glanced at them and so they were unsigned.

That is not what political journalists do when they receive or get a copy of an anonymous letter written by some misguided soul from within the opposing party, who ignores the damage he inflicts upon his own party thereby. No doubt, there have been anonymous letters within the Nationalist Party.

But the practice seems to be far too close to the heart of a few people - they cannot be more than that - within the Labour Party.

Over the past 15 years there have been several spates of them. Such anonymous letters are evidently in season again. The Nationalists are delighted, but short-sighted. At one time or another, the boot will be on the other foot.

Those who truly see politics as a noble art of serving others will try to do so by drawing up clear proposals, and endeavouring to persuade a democratic majority to accept them. That applies both within parties, and particularly across the electorate.

There will always be those who positively pant with anticipation to learn what has been said or written anonymously about someone or other, or to follow not-so-anonymous attacks on the person, rather than on his/her beliefs.

The vast majority will not vote in that context. The target of anonymous letters may well suffer, but in the end it is democracy that suffers most. And, thereby, the people.

Anonymous plants bear fruit that can only be poisonous, not least to those who enjoy exploiting it. The sickness is contagious.

Dealing with dirty hands

The hands that sawed or broke or pulled up 3,000 young trees at Mellieha in mid-week belong to bodies powered by minds no less sick and sickening than those that conceive dirty anonymous letters.

I quite understand the reaction of the good souls who were quick to seek to repair the damage, with donations of money or in kind. That is not the way I would go about it.

I would first of all have a lesson allocated at all levels of primary and secondary schools, whereby it commences with a crisp, flat report of what was discovered at Mellieha, starting with the words - "Three thousand saplings were stolen from you..."

I would then organise visits to the site, for the schoolchildren to see the destruction.

Only after that has been done and allowed to sink in would I set about repairing it.