Honesty and disclosure

One of my closest friends once took me aside to make a point: "Just because you think something is true," he stressed, "doesn't mean it must perforce be expressed. " What he was saying merited reflection: That a personal truth is not necessarily an absolute value. That to state it is not always the best course of action. His words came back to me these past days when a number of people in public life have made utterances that caused me to reflect upon the delicate relationship between truth and strategy.

Michael Falzon makes stunning revelations about the state his party was in before the election. John Dalli describes the length of surgical waiting lists at Mater Dei Hospital as "scandalous". Simon Busuttil lets us know that even though the Prime Minister and his wife found the time to petition him, he had turned down the post of party general secretary. All of the statements made are true but the point is: Should they have been made at all?

What did Falzon hope to gain by telling us that the last five years as deputy party leader were akin to "martyrdom"? Perhaps he had concluded that his own chances of winning the leadership of his party were very slim. He knew that after June 5 everybody would be expected to close ranks again and all public expression of dissent clamped down. The interregnum was the only opportunity to speak out.

Would doing so coincide with Labour's need to cure, heal and regroup? I think Falzon was well aware that his words would poison the waters even more. He chose to speak because, evidently, he felt he had to set the record straight. In so doing, his truth did indeed converge with his strategy. Not so much the strategy for winning Labour's crown, nor the one of helping the party regain strength but the one of absolving himself of responsibility for its defeat.

Dalli is right to deplore excessively long waiting lists in public health, for which he is now responsible. Did he, however, need to provocatively describe the state of affairs as "scandalous"? Was his strategy to assure us that now that he's back all will be solved? If it was, he must rue ending up on the losing end of an exchange with Louis Deguara.

Unavoidably challenged by Dalli's choice of words, Deguara reminded everybody that his solution to alleviate people's hardship - the government paying for patients to be operated upon privately - was rejected by his intransigent Minister of Finance at the time, Dalli himself. Nothing about this exchange has helped the PN's reputation for good governance. Nor will it make it easier to address this particular social problem.

The choice of the PN general secretary is a democratic one. Although the party leader's opinion carries most weight, it is not an anointing. Accordingly the leader acts with political maturity, which means due discretion in his search for the right person combined with respect for the democratic process. Ultimately, Busuttil decided not to contest the post of general secretary but he made it known that "Lawrence and Kate" had met with him in order to discuss the matter (The Sunday Times, May 25). I have no doubt that this is true but in so doing Busuttil may have revealed more than the party leader would have wished to be known.

Having refused the burden of that office for himself, Busuttil may have made it more difficult for the party to find a new, equally valid, general secretary. Indeed, the next person approached has now been told, along with the public, that he was not the Gonzis' first guest.

Which strategy, one might justifiably ask, is the writer promoting in exposing the facts above? It is this: There are burning questions of truth and principle over which one might have to take a stand which distances himself from his party. These are generally few and far between but may be essential to serving the common good.

Otherwise, as the disaster within the Labour Party has shown, society is best served when elected politicians seek to achieve the vision of their party before seeking to promote their personal truths.