The minor relative majority which the Nationalist Party has achieved over the Labour Party in the last general election will definitely be instrumental in making both parties undergo a deep soul-searching exercise. One has to admit that certain matters have gone really wrong for both parties. Notwithstanding the great achievements of Lawrence Gonzi and his team during the last few years, the PN has suffered from lack of support from previous members of its flock who were disgruntled with factors related to the day-to-day administrative procedures in running the country. This might explain the reduced turnout in particular areas where in the past Nationalist supporters were predominant.
The mudslinging exercises which the MLP embarked upon during the election campaign must have increased this lack of enthusiasm and rampant suspicions. Even though most of the allegations of wrong-doing were and would remain unfounded, these tactics by the opposition have now become a characteristic of Labour campaigns and must have had their toll. This is evident in the manner in which PN supporters have voted. Also, Nationalist sympathisers and independent analysts have often exhorted Dr Gonzi to change his Cabinet of ministers who, without doubt, followed the party leader in a very discreet way during the election campaign. My feeling, and, surely, that of many others, that Dr Gonzi would select a new Cabinet to help in the challenges ahead has been proved right... and we now have some young and more energetic members in his new team.
A more detailed analysis would highlight the great mistakes committed by the MLP.
The issue of the introduction of an extra year in the school curriculum must have caused alarm among many parents. I simply cannot understand how such issues were brought forward to be "discussed" on the eve of an election when the record of interference by the MLP in education (the private and Church schools issues in the past) showed that such crusades never helped the party.
Another grave mistake was to promise to reopen discussions on agreements signed with the EU when this was supposed to be a closed issue.
These two factors alone should have been responsible for the difference of 1,500 votes between the two parties. Whoever had these brilliant ideas must be really cursing his bad luck and poor timing!
The Maltese as a whole in the past have told the MLP: Hands off the EU and the euro! Hands off our children's future. Do not experiment, please.
When will the MLP stop making the same mistakes when planning ahead?
The MLP should stop adopting confrontational and pessimistic attitudes and it should also stop demonstrating low esteem in the abilities of the Maltese people. The MLP worked hard to completely eradicate the violent elements within its folds and this thanks to Alfred Sant's formidable determination and efforts.
Now the MLP must project itself as a good and safe alternative. Some of its moderate and intelligent members can make this happen but their reputation has to improve. They could have supported the PN in the pensions reform, in the planning of social services and the educational and tourism sectors and not just opposed and said no to everything. This would encourage floaters to see a credible and safe government in Labour. Most professionals, students, pensioners and self-employed persons would prefer the "evil" they know than the unknown, which, in some cases, had a dismal past!
Pity that the PN was voted back to power with just a small margin. Considering the PN's huge achievements over the past few years on all fronts, this small margin is not justified. Dr Gonzi himself has admitted that the next challenge, apart from consolidating past achievements, must be directed at issues that have been eating away the majority the PN won in previous elections.
Two issues that featured high in the MLP's mudslinging campaign were Mepa and the environment, which have both now been taken under Dr Gonzi's direct control.
Although referring to past Labour discrepancies between projected and real costs of major projects is good "self-defence" by the government, it is not good enough for the ordinary citizen who is paying his taxes to the last euro cent! It is not enough to argue that unforeseen circumstances inflated the bill. Audited accounts of all expenses, normal and extra, should be published. If this is not done on the excuse that it is of a commercial nature it would only make for loopholes and open the way for corrupt practices.
And what about the Whistleblower Act? I do not think that a law-abiding citizen would be in favour of such a law if it means granting a pardon to a person who is an accomplice in some corruption scandal but then would want to get his way back on previous corrupt partners if something has gone wrong for him or her! This is not the type of deterrent I want. A criminal is always a criminal even if he decides one day to blow his whistle in favour of justice.
Such pardons, including of the Presidential type, are not looked upon favourably by law-abiding citizens. I would go for transparency and accountability. We have to inject more discipline in this country. Measures aimed at fighting tax evasion should be increased and strengthened and enforced... with minimum bureaucracy and in preference to criminal espionage!
Accountants of large companies have their auditors too. All of us ordinary citizens have the right to know where our money and those funds obtained from the EU are going cent by cent... with every cubic metre of cement accounted for! This transparency does not have to bother honest administrators. Controls might involve extra expenses but I am sure they would save millions of euros.
When we private citizens sign contracts with contractors, we provide for an element of flexibility and a specific time frame in which the project has to be completed. Delays may happen, extra expenses might be incurred but private contactors sign penalty clauses! Why are such clauses not included when public funds are being used? Accountability - that is the secret of success in this sphere. The PN has been instrumental in bringing about transparency in the contracts awarded whether for products and/or services. Direct orders have decreased considerably. Bureaucracy has been reduced and should be even further eased. Mepa's reputation that it is weak with the strong but strong with the weak must be reversed. Justice should be done and must be seen to be done!
Mudslinging resorted to by both parties always involves the issues of permits, tax evasion or the award of projects. Yet, both the PN and the MLP have closely cooperated to find solutions to past problems. Look at the civil manner in which the parties behaved during election time. The hug between Labour deputy leader Michael Falzon and Joe Saliba, the PN's secretary general, was such a touching gesture. This is what we want to see from both the PN and the MLP.
The MLP should prove it wants a new beginning and not remain the no party. Thousands would flock to join the MLP.
On the other hand, Dr Gonzi should be courageous enough to admit that half of the population would like to see the leader on the opposition's side be respected, even consulted. Offers in this regard have been forthcoming from the PN's side in the past.
The MLP's new beginning, now that they have lost the election, should be in their attitude. Their role remains to criticise, to keep the government on its toes, to highlight irregularities and make the government accountable... But they should persuade themselves that finding ways of convergence is not a sign of weakness but political strength.
We know the country's needs in terms of jobs, education, security, tourism and social services.
The citizen voter patterns have changed, our expectations have increased, we deserve better... we should be proud to be Maltese and become the pride of the new wave of countries within the EU.
We have the substance and the expertise and a great future. Both the PN and the MLP should say it with confidence and certainty.
Together we will make Malta the great nation it deserves to be. Though small, we will soon become the envy of our partners in the EU!
Dr Pace was a science education officer at the Ministry of Education and for quite some time medical representative employed with leading pharmaceutical companies reporting to Italy and Belgium. He is a chartered biologist with further specialisation in marketing and management.