It ought to have been a walk in the park for Alfred Sant and Labour. They entered the election campaign facing a party that had been in government for the previous 10 years, and for 19 of the previous 21.
It was a government burdened by the effects of decisions, and of non-decisions, that were seen by many voters to impinge on their personal interests; a government with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority albatross hanging securely from its neck; a government accused of betrayal by the hunting fraternity, and of insensitivity to the plight of birds by nature lovers; a government whom the environmental lobby derided for giving in to the rapacious demands of developers; a government, which through the actions of some ministers and even more so of some members of their entourage, manifested clear signs of arrogance; a government which contained too many over-familiar faces that prompted some of its own supporters to yearn for change, even if it was change for its own sake.
Could any party occupying the role of a government in waiting ask for more?
Furthermore, countless pro-MLP sympathisers, including some obvious Sant sycophants, filled kilometres of column space assuring us that the Gonzi administration would be swept from power come March 8. They based their predictions on the dire straits that they claimed the country was in and in particular on the superiority of Sant's administrative and management skills. Collectively they adopted the stance taken by Sant and his party that voters were champing at the bit to be rid of an administration responsible for economic stagnation, never-before-experienced levels of taxation, and the blighting of the country's future.
The curious thing is that the MLP, particularly Sant, appear to have been genuinely convinced of the inevitability of a Labour victory by default as far back as 2003. How else can one explain the eagerness with which Sant immediately regretted his decision to resign as leader once the shock of electoral defeat had worn off and he realised that the next government would be burdened with much of what has been detailed above, plus the historical fact that the country sought change every 10 years?
This is what probably prompted him to hold on to the leadership in the knowledge that the next election offered him an extremely good chance of again becoming Prime Minister and politically vindicating himself. If others in the party had to be sacrificed, including then party secretary Jimmy Magro, in expiation of the party's referendum and election defeats, so be it. Sant's position as party leader, and possibly his conviction of eventual success, were strengthened by the party's subsequent success in electing three MEPs to the the PN's two. The fact that the large vote for the AD candidate was partly motivated by the desire of a section of PN voters who wished to express disgruntlement, must have further strengthened his belief in the certainty of a victory. The next election would be a walk in the park.
This is the spirit in which the MLP campaign was conducted, at least at the beginning before the party was thrown on the defensive and increasingly made to appear to be making policy on the hoof.
The MLP's campaign stood out for its lack of innovation - the adoption of a three-word slogan dating back to the PN's Eighties' campaigns, the more than a decade-old exhortation for a bidu ġdid, the re-appearance of the old coach tal-bidla - and its total lack of a vision capable of truly inspiring the country.
Worst of all was the lack of realisation that he had lost the best asset he had when he won the 1992 election: he was then an unknown quantity. Was there also lack of acknowledgement by Sant that he too was weighed down by considerable burdens? These were relentlessly exposed by the PN through its tactic of emphasising that the electorate faced a stark choice as to whom they wanted to run the country for the next five years. Sant's record in government and as party leader was highlighted.
People were reminded of his tendency to be vague, leading his listeners to make positive assumptions about his intentions, as the notorious VAT-CET and cash registers episode showed; of his willingness to go back on promises, as in the case of the workers' council at the dockyard; of his readiness to find quick solutions to fiscal problems without concern for their negative social impact as illustrated by the tax levied by his administration on water and electricity meters; of his documented habit of declaring party policies without consulting his colleagues.
They were also made to recall his unwavering and uncompromising opposition to Malta's EU membership; of offering instead the half-baked Switzerland-in-the Mediterranean/ Partnership option; of his steady and continued refusal to acknowledge the people's opinion as expressed by means of a referendum; of his perverse interpretation of the EU referendum result; of his branding of a government enjoying a healthy majority as illegitimate; of his refusal to contribute to the national pension reform exercise; of his reluctance to admit that Malta was ready to adopt the euro; of his inability to accept that Malta could compete economically within the EU; of his constant depiction of a doom and gloom scenario; of his transparent attitude of highlighting any negative report on the country's performance while belittling all the positive ones; of his readiness to allow a prominent MLP exponent, Manwel Cuschieri, licence to intimidate critics by exposing them to the contempt and ridicule of the party faithful; of his reluctance to answer any awkward question. The list goes on.
Dr Sant's record was contrasted with Gonzi's. As Prime Minister, Gonzi successfully got to grips with the country's fiscal deficit. This was instrumental towards Malta's adoption of the euro. He negotiated a EU financial aid package of €850 million to cover the period up to 2013. His administration perpetuated stability and continued to expand the islands' infrastructure. This resulted in foreign investment at a rate and at a level that was hitherto unimagined.
Gonzi was the driving force behind the overhauling of the country's economy that saw financial and IT services, maritime services, and pharmaceuticals becoming mainstays. Educational services were broadened, made to cater better for differing abilities and needs. Tertiary education has grown immeasurably and is still expanding. The number of gainfully occupied has reached record levels. The economy has been stimulated by an on-going tax-cutting programme that is complemented by measures that allow pensioners to contribute meaningfully.
The government has shielded those in need from the effect of the astronomic energy prices. Gonzi continually emphasises his belief in this country's and in its people's ability to compete in a globalised world without minimising the difficulties that exist. He acknowledged publicly that certain things could have been done better or that wrong decisions had been taken, and he apologised for them. He possesses charisma that enables him to be, and be seen to be, at ease whether surrounded by senior citizens, youngsters, workers or professionals.
It was this confrontation of personal political records as well as of personality that turned the tide for the PN. The party's strategy was helped, if not inspired, by an important statistic that never varied in published polls.
In answer to the question as to who was preferred as Prime Minister, those who answered Gonzi, consistently outstripped those who opted for Sant. The MLP's answer to the PN's tactic of pushing forward a Sant-Gonzi confrontation was to present the MLP as a team and not as a one-man show. The problem was that whenever the MLP team appeared together on television screens they rarely smiled as if they were endeavouring to win the national best glare competition.
The exception was the party general secretary who tended to preen and grin, and to say things that cemented a perception of total inanity. As the five-week campaign enfolded Sant and Co. soldiered on, increasingly on the defensive, still desperately clinging to the illusion that since 10 years had passed since they last were in power it was now their natural right to win the election. Blinkered by these illusions Sant managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It was inevitable that March 11 would bring Dr Sant's "irrevocable" decision to step down as party leader. During his time he made genuine efforts to reorganise the party. His greatest contribution was to rid it of its violent element and the civilised way in which the two parties co-operated during the vote counting is a tribute to the change of mentality that Sant brought. I shudder to think what might have taken place at the counting hall last Sunday, in pre-Sant days, once the tension became unbearable.
I wish Sant well, continued good-health above all else, and look forward to his further contributions in the literary and theatrical fields.