One of the ugliest facets of the peculiar Maltese way of doing politics is to attack an adversary not for what he does, but for the real or alleged sins of his family, canvassers, even workmates and incidental acquaintances.
I thought that this time around a truce had been called in that regard, based on a tacit agreement that no smear by association be attempted on one of the ablest and cleanest MPs of the younger Nationalist generation.
I was wrong. The Nationalist Party is currently engaging in a smear campaign based on the case of former lawyer Patrick Spiteri - the president of the Chamber of Advocates pointed out in The Times (June 29) that his warrant to practise the profession had been withdrawn some time ago.
The Nationalist frenzied spin is two-fold. The broader sweep adumbrates the 'charge' that Spiteri had been an adviser to former Labour Prime Minister Alfred Sant and Finance Minister Leo Brincat in 1996 when they were introducing the CET legislation intended to replace the Value Added Tax enacted by the Nationalist government before the PN lost that year's general election.
The intention of the spin is clear. It is to associate Sant in particular, and the Labour government in general, with Spiteri, leaving hanging the unstated but clearly implied suggestion that if Spiteri was guilty of wrongdoing, so were Sant, Brincat and the whole Labour government of 1996-98.
The specific spin of the PN targets Joseph Muscat personally. It says that years ago the Labour leader had been an employee of Spiteri and worked "hand in hand" with him (spalla ma' spalla is the Maltese expression used by the PN).
Again, the obvious intent is to make out the Labour leader a fraudster by association. The 'news' item is printed, broadcast and steadily repeated, planting the charge in people's mind.
Let me tackle the two spins in sequence.
When Labour was elected in 1996 it was my task to devise a scheme and draw up legislation to replace VAT, in accordance with Labour's electoral promise. I set about to do that without enthusiasm, since I privately opposed the removal of VAT. I also did so in the knowledge that I had a technically very difficult burden to tackle.
A friend offered to introduce me to Spiteri. He told me that he was an established taxation lawyer and had also helped the Ministry of Finance to draft the VAT legislation. Spiteri accepted to help out.
He was totally proper in what he attempted. When I resigned from Cabinet in March 1997 the job was not completed. Sant, who assumed personal responsibility to replace VAT, inherited from me the work I had done with the help of finance ministry personnel, some economists - and Spiteri. That help obviously continued to be given to the Prime Minister.
That was what there was to it. I might add that in the close to six months he collaborated with me Spiteri never sent in a bill, or sought any advantage out of his position, though I don't exclude that he was paid a fee later. How all that fits in with the current Nationalist spin is for them to justify.
It is up to them too to justify their attempt to politically assassinate Muscat through association with Spiteri. If I recollect correctly, he was not employed by the latter's firm. But even if, for the sake of argument, he were, what of it? Does that mean he subsequently worked "hand in hand" with Spiteri in whatever wrong-doing he is alleged to have committed?
The attempt to blacken their Labour opponent is unworthy of Lawrence Gonzi's Nationalists. It does not make for democratic politics. But then, this is Malta. In the past the Labour side have been guilty of the same type of behaviour. They would try to tar a former Nationalist Minister - John Dalli - by association with his brother when he was charged with alleged illegality. (That John Dalli subsequently received worse treatment still from within his own party, causing him to leave the Cabinet, is one of the abiding ironies of our political history.)
The two parties really ought to take a good look at themselves. Politicians should be charged with their own behaviour, including personal undertakings, and deploying or associating with canvassers, other supporters and acquaintances known for their unacceptable shortcomings, including illegalities. To extend that ethical rule to attempted political assassination by association is evil in itself, and an insult to thinking voters. It is not the only such insult the political class is guilty of.
Wicked spin of this type, handled by blackened experts in it, skates the margins of the laws of libel and slander. It is part of a well-known negative psychological way of doing politics. Those who indulge in such spin probably congratulate themselves in the old belief that if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick - there are always those who are prepared to think the worst of politicians.
To adopt that ugly style, though, is to implicitly admit that, by fighting clean politics, you do not stand a chance of winning. It is also a sign that those who directly practise, as party media do, and permit such spin, as some leaders do, do not truly respect the tenets of a healthy democracy. Above all, the style boomerangs. The human factor is such that both political parties live in glass houses.