The date of the next general elections is the prerogative of the prime minister, so long as he keeps within the time parameters imposed by the Constitution. However, out on the streets there is a lively debate about the likeliest alternatives. As usual in Malta, the date of an election is discussed more intensely than what will actually happen in the ensuing five years.

Discussing with a group of friends the pros and cons that the prime minister is supposedly weighing in his mind, I was surprised when someone insisted that the earlier the election is called, the better are the chances of a PN victory.

The argument went something like this: Labour, like 1996, is devoid of any real policies, and its only chance is, as usual, riddling the government and the PN with personal campaigns against each and every minister and parliamentary secretary. Yesterday it was Carm Mifsud Bonnici; today it is Censu Galea; tomorrow will be the next one on Alfred Sant's pre-ordained list.

At the same time, each minister will be assailed by hundreds of citizens, who think they cannot miss the 'perfect opportunity' to get their 'pjacir' (favour) because the election is close.

This is also the time when their 'comrades-in-arms' (in an electoral system that pits candidates from the same party against each other) are doing their damnedest to undermine the minister's political base at the local level... meanwhile they are, of course, expected to run their ministries as normally as possible.

The chances are that several ministers and parliamentary secretaries will experience quite a dose of fatigue as a result, and end up acting like the worn-out people Dr Sant precisely wants to depict.

It is obvious - went on the argument - that the longer the time before an election is called, the better the odds in favour of Dr Sant re-entering Castille.

I thought that this argument might make sense if, as it implies, the Nationalists are not capable of learning from what happened in 1996 by taking the necessary steps to withstand Dr Sant's standard onslaught and so allow the prime minister to decide on an election date that fits more apt considerations than Dr Sant's typical attempts at mud-slinging.

Meanwhile, Dr Sant also pushes another line of thought: Labour's government-in-waiting has a 'plan' on how to run the country. It has a 'plan' for Marsaxlokk, a 'plan' for Bugibba and a 'plan' for Hal Xluq. The closure of the Jerma would not have happened had the country been lucky enough to be run according to Labour's 'plan'.

Dr Sant ridicules the new hospital; the water leak would not have happened under a Labour 'plan'. The roofs at the Mater Dei would support the weight of a landing helicopter in Labour's 'plan' - even though it would have built the hospital at half price.

And, of course, Labour has a 'plan' for the tourist industry. But this is simply grist for the mill. It is hardly the sort of propaganda that can lead to a change of attitude by a sceptical public that can still remember how Sant's 'plans' were delivered after his 1996 electoral victory.

When asked what his 'plans' actually contain, Dr Sant replies that, as soon as he is prime minister again, he will meet all interested parties to draw up a 'plan'. That is, Dr Sant has a plan to plan a plan!

Dr Sant may be an inept builder, as his months in power confirmed, but he is a much better demolition expert, as his years in opposition have constantly shown. Not only does he have the knack of spinning continuous conspiracy theories from the least shred of nothingness, but he then proceeds to stick to them and repeat them in the face of rebuttals and sensible explanations.

So if Dr Sant keeps on repeating his allegations for at least 11 times - or whatever is the magic number that some American researcher has decreed as the minimum number of repetitions necessary for the public to get brainwashed - the rebuttals have to be repeated over and over again as well.

Moreover, it is obvious that different ministers react to Labour attacks differently. Some try to brush them off until they panic when they realise the mud has started to stick. Others just make one statement denying the allegations, while others resort to the Courts by instituting libel suits or to the Permanent Commission against Corruption by asking it to investigate whatever it is that Labour is alleging.

Believing that "is-sewwa jirbah zgur" (right will surely triumph) is not enough. The PN must have a carefully thought out strategic plan applied uniformly across the board to counter Dr Sant's habitual demolition attempts.

Incredibly, sometimes the administration obligingly acts as Dr Sant's best friend. The administrative racket in mariners' licences was pursued by the Police after the Maritime Authority auditor intelligently looked for discrepancies between the number of tests held and the number of licences issued.

Instead of pro-actively making a public statement about it, the administration kept it under wraps until the story leaked to the media and to Labour! Instead of crediting the government with the fact that the internal system of checks caught up with the racket, and that no one was spared, the general public by now thinks that steps were taken only after the media reports and after Dr Sant's prodding. How's that for abetting Dr Sant's strategy?

At least the two ADT driving examiners who have been found guilty of abuse in driving tests by the Courts were sacked by the ADT last Thursday although not as soon as the final Court sentence was pronounced... because they asked for a Presidential pardon.

Personally, I think that this is the sort of case where a Presidential pardon should never be given; but such a pardon, in any case, cannot be interpreted as anything but a pardon. It does not make some vanishing trick on the guilt already pronounced by the Courts.

Therefore, it did not make sense for the ADT to keep these two persons suspended on half pay until the request for pardon was decided upon. Such dithering only serves to give credibility to Dr Sant's desperate strategy of pushing abuse at a low level to the status of corruption at ministerial level.

It is for the government to decide whether to have a long hot summer folding under Dr Sant's predictable attack or pro-actively tackle the party that secretly sent several developers in its official delegation to Dubai.

If the government strategically tackles Dr Sant's typical campaign, it can have a cool holiday before presenting a good budget, successfully introducing the euro in January, explaining Dr Gonzi's achievements in the past three years in contrast to Dr Sant's 22 months of incompetence and then go to the country after a full term - and not when it suits the serial mud-slinger.

micfal@maltanet.net

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.