Contradictions galore

The GRTU is probably the only organisation which will seek to elect an MEP specifically to represent it. Its general secretary, Vince Farrugia, will do more than that should he be elected in the June election.

Given his political background, Farrugia, surprisingly to some of those who know him, did not choose to stand as an independent promoting the interests of small and medium-sized businesses, which would have made a lot of sense, in view of his long tenure at the GRTU.

He opted instead to stand on the Nationalist Party ticket. That is an exercise in freedom of association and choice which everyone should respect. In a sense it is ironic, as well as an illustration of contrariness in the political sphere. Nationalist gurus do not for a moment pause for breath in their spin against Labour leader Joseph Muscat and other Labourites because the PL was opposed to EU membership.

The PN does not see Muscat as a welcome convert to the European cause. Some within the PN, in fact, write and speak as if the Labour side is not entitled to field any candidate at all in the European Parliament elections because of its past opposition to membership.

That, of course, is as nonsensical as it is ridiculous. Political opinions are not written in stone. Everybody is at liberty to evolve and adapt them, even if on the face of it one is seen as changing them. That is exactly what Farrugia has done, and he has been welcomed by the Nationalists with open arms. He is considered a good catch, and he is.

Farrugia is a seasoned economist who has applied his honed talents in one sector or another for many years. Nevertheless, the Nationalists cannot acclaim his conversion to their cause while at same time firing away with intent at the Labour side for having accepted EU membership. The contradiction is self-evident.

Only politicians and spinners who do not respect themselves fall into it. The attack on the Labour side for now promoting the EU as a good thing is strange for another reason. It heavily implies that the Nationalists would prefer Labour to continue to militate against the European Union. That contrasts strongly with the calls by Lawrence Gonzi to present a united front on matters of national interest.

As members of the EU, irrespective of how we got there before opposing roads sensibly converged, our political parties and MEPs need to discuss the best way to promote Malta's interests in the EU's institutions.

That is what unity of purpose should be all about. It is not about singing with one voice, like a Nabucco choir. It is, surely, about moving in the same direction - Malta's national interest - immaterial of the fact that our political class does so by manning different vehicles.

The old story about converts and heretics, depending on which side you viewed them, should by now be recognised as infantile. What matters is that that those who move from one side of the floor to the other do so out of conviction, and not because they test the wind and their chances of success and work out which position suits them most. That is naked opportunism, nothing less. Commitment is made of sterner stuff.

Farrugia is now committed to the Nationalist side and, happy for him, the GRTU advises its members to be committed to him. There is no other candidate, on either side, who has a discernible lobby committed to him or her. Rather, other candidates have to be painstakingly clear that they act in the name of collectiveness. There are distinguishing features, of course.

Not all the candidates are endowed with equal financial means to promote themselves. Those who can spend, do so. Those who cannot spend project themselves through the tried and tested formula of personal contact with as many people as they can reach over the time of their campaign.

The most effective formula - will be revealed in under two months. Between now and June 6, when the European Parliament elections will be held, candidates would do well to strive to make clear their personal attributes which distinguish them and make them eligible for the voters' top preference.

Self-praise may not be advisable. Yet neither is hiding one's talents under a bushel the best course forward in politics.

Candidates who go over the top in praising themselves will be seen as loudmouths, and be dealt with accordingly by the electorate. Candidates who hold back too much will not catch the attention of enough of the electorate. There is a balance to be struck. The prize will go to those who find the best way to do it.

One hopes that the electorate will choose rationally, on the basis of thorough assessment of the candidates' capabilities, even if they do so within strict party loyalty.

That loyalty will not be evident in full in the June election, which will probably once again see a lower turnout than in the general election. To whatever extent it is evident, it should not make voters blind to the distinct features, good or bad, of the candidates on their preferred list.