In praise of Lawrence Gonzi

It’s Wednesday, as I write, and the government hadn’t fallen and it seems that it is unlikely to do so until at least Thursday. Unless, that is, our dearly beloved Honourable Ladies and Gents decide to agree on a different number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

For all the (Labour Party) sniping, under GonziPN the country is not in bad nick- I.M. Beck

So it’s something of the calm before a storm or an extension of Franco Debono keeping us all guessing, or whatever. And whatever, it seems we’re heading into election mode, the dogs of war having been let slip and they’re notoriously difficult beasts to corral, those pesky dogs of war.

The main plank of the Labour Party’s campaign, clearly, is going to be a head-on assault on GonziPN, the slogan that so annoyed them last time around and which they’re using to mount their attack this time.

They’re also trying to garner sympathy by adopting an underdog pose, which is astounding to anyone with half a brain because a party that has lost the last three real elections it contested (they won 1996, though they seem ashamed to admit it) is statistically, if in no other way, the top pooch and no mistake.

Attacking GonziPN means attacking Lawrence Gonzi, of course, and in this the PL and its apologists and comforters are nonpareil. They excel, just to be sure they (and they know who “they” are) get what I mean, and the fact that they are not supported by the facts is of no consequence to them. Like football yobs on the terraces, their watchword is “attack, attack, attack, attack, attack”, repeated staccato for as long as it takes.

Let’s examine just who it is that they’re seeking to destroy, shall we?

The Prime Minister had to handle a revolution happening not much more than 350 kilometres south of us with the human and foreign policy problems that this brought. Did he do it badly? No, he did not. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that he put us on the map in a positive way, despite the caviling and carping of the anti-diluvian isolationists who tried to wrap themselves in the false flag of neutrality.

The Prime Minister had to field the hand grenades being chucked our way after the financial world hit the skids and went down the toilet in no small way. Did he do it badly? I’m no economist but the evidence is that, no, he did not do it badly.

What can one say, in truth, other than “so far so good”. But this doesn’t stop people shooting their mouths off about income tax rates, although they know full well the goalposts are no longer even standing? When you’re as shallow as the PL’s spokesmen, these silly sound bites come naturally but it would be nice if they treated our intelligence with a modicum of respect.

Is this starting to sound like a paean of praise for Dr Gonzi? Yes, it is, because, honestly (a concept with which many appear unfamiliar), he deserves praise, though this doesn’t mean he isn’t human.

His government, for instance, handled the ministers’ salaries issues ineptly, for all that happened was that ministers were being afforded the same treatment as any other public servant who draws a salary from the public coffers and a parliamentary honorarium at the same time. I suspect that a couple of Labour MPs are feeling very uncomfortable with the “€500 campaign” because some bright spark might soon name names and ask if they’re going to give it back.

To be going on with his human failings, Dr Gonzi could have been a touch more sensitive to the national mood after the divorce referendum, when he decided to vote against, although he had already declared that the people’s will shall be done, as it was.

The irony here is that the very same people who are harping on about this are – at one and the same time and without a trace of shame – egging on Dr Debono to vote “with his conscience” although by so doing he would be denying the wishes of the people who elected him. Consistency, anyone? I don’t think so.

Dr Gonzi, while on the subject, might have showed more backbone in dealing with said Dr Debono but his critics (blessed of course with 20-20 hindsight) fail to admit, because it is inconvenient for them to do so, that politics is the art of the possible and it is not possible to maintain a single-seat majority if this depends on someone to whom generally accepted standards of behaviour seem alien.

For all the PL’s sniping, under GonziPN the country is not in bad nick.

For instance, we don’t have beggars in the streets, though, according to the PL, we’ve never had it so bad.

When you take into account that people who are supposed to be part of the meritocracy, as they are, seem to have no compunction in calling this country mediocre, when they themselves are part of systems that demonstrate that it is not, then there’s not much you can do in the face of blatant lies.

Just in case you don’t see what I mean, consider the inherent contradiction, which he conveniently ignores because he’s talking to the Labour general conference, of a respected medical consultant, who clearly achieved his well-deserved status in a Nationalist-governed country, calling our country mediocre.

Is it really true, you have to ask, that in order to contest as a Labour candidate, you have to call your country, and therefore yourself, mediocre, Dr Chris Fearne?

Oh, well, this is, after all, a party whose leader seems to be able to reconcile himself with an equally monumental contradiction. He wants stability but proposes a destabilising confidence vote and then declares that whatever the result, the country is unstable anyway.

So why did he bother with the motion in the first place, if not to grandstand?

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/articles/author/20