Forward in prosperity or back to a new beginning

We are nearly there. In under two weeks we will know if either Lawrence Gonzi or Alfred Sant will be the next Prime Minister. We would know if the country will proceed with its current economic boom or if it will go back to make a fresh start whatever that really means. I think it is most likely that we will enjoy both scenarios. The country will press on to reach new heights, the vision of excellence by 2015, and the Labour Party, compelled by the electorate, will definitely embark on a real radical transformation, the scenario favoured by Labour sympathisers who cannot bring themselves to deliver the country into the hands of the present inept, incompetent, rudderless leadership.

The electorate is being bombarded by the desirability of having a coalition government. Strict proportionality at the expense of stability! Nearby Italy, with post-war governments lasting an average of one year each, should teach us otherwise. Nor do we have to go beyond our shores. The least effective Maltese governments were the coalition governments led by George Borg Olivier in the early 1950s. One minority member or other voted with the opposition when it suited him. The final blow was delivered by a Malta Workers Party minister who resigned, only to be elected on the Labour Party ticket in the resultant election. The electorate took the lesson to heart and, henceforth, elected one-party governments. Dr Borg Olivier's political career was redeemed once he led two one-party Nationalist governments in the 1960s.

Would Independence have been achieved were it not for the stable parliamentary majority? Would Lawrence Gonzi's reforms have been achievable without the solid majority behind him? Or would the minority party in government have taken the opportunity to make hay while the Prime Minister's courageous decisions lowered his popularity? It happened in the past; it may happen again. Would our Vision 2015 be achievable under a coalition government?

Coalition governments are inherently weak and indecisive. They work against efficiency. They are government not by the majority but by a tiny minority. In theory, coalition governments look the essence of democracy. In practice, they frequently render themselves in the dictatorship of a tiny minority.

It is also being stated that there is a possibility and even the probability of a coalition. A chimera rather! Those who are propounding the idea either do not understand how the electoral system works or are doing this in order to garner as many votes as possible. Their right as it is our duty to unmask their attempt to hoodwink the electorate.

First of all, no party will gain a seat unless it reaps about 16 per cent of the votes in a single district. Outrightly impossible, neither achievable by the idealists nor by those with a huge chip on their shoulders looking out for revenge! Without a third party in Parliament there clearly can be no coalition. Secondly, the electoral districts are this time heavily loaded in favour of Labour to the extent that Labour can get a majority of seats with a minority of first-count votes. In the scenario where no third party gains any seats, the party with a relative majority would be given as many seats as its number of first-count votes merits.

Granted that, for the sake of argument, we concede that a minor party will win a seat! In that case the PN will definitely be in a relative minority as both small parties are targeting those electors who usually vote for us. Labour would have a majority of seats and in that case it would need no one to coalesce with. A vote for any minor party is a vote for Alfred Sant. No wonder the Labour Party never criticises the minor parties! No wonder the spectacle of Dr Sant holding Josie Muscat's hands high in triumph. Both minor parties bring grist to Labour's mill.

Do you want to help Labour be in government? Vote straightaway for Labour, stay at home, spoil your vote, or vote for any of the minor parties. This is not scaremongering, it's the sober reality. Those who feel short-changed by our government must ask themselves if they will be better off under Dr Sant. Their hurt may be remedied in a few weeks' or months' time. Failing to vote or wasting their vote would mean a mistake that cannot be remedied before five years.

In the circumstances, the only coalition possible is the traditional one now led by Dr Gonzi - the Nationalist Party. The party that accommodates conservatives and traditionalists as well as liberals and moderate leftists, employers and workers, intellectuals as well as the most humble, developers and environmentalists, all held together by the principle of solidarity. So it has been since 1976 and so it will remain in the foreseeable future. It is the party where ideas from various camps are knocked against each other until distilled into a middle-of-the road policy that is largely acceptable to party and country. It further requires a real leader, a strong, charismatic leader to keep the party together. Such a leader was Eddie Fenech Adami; such is the present leader Dr Gonzi.

Both leaders have been tested. Dr Sant was an utter failure in government and opposition. Dr Gonzi was successful in every private or public sector he touched. In fact, the contrast cannot be sharper. The gap grew immensely during the campaign. With the economy roaring, with a confused and blurred vision, with no understanding of the art of modern government, the MLP resorted more than ever to unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of corruption.

Take my case. I fired an official when I learned that he was being investigated. That is real zero tolerance. I was daubed with corruption. His brother resorted to the MLP because, in his very words, he found no solace in the PN. In simple terms, he wanted us to interfere in the judicial process. He was received with open arms within the Labour fold and used in the campaign. Is that zero tolerance?

Dr Sant is increasingly showing how superficial are some of Labour's proposals. Take the "reception" class. When pressed he mumbled that the measure will not be forced on private schools and that a named school already had this type of class. The latter was immediately denied by the head of this school. So now, after years of our government endeavouring to remove the differences between the two systems, here comes Dr Sant effectively telling us that children attending state schools will have an extra year of schooling. Another exodus from state schools in the offing? For those who can afford it. The others will have to lump it. What will a Labour government do then? Another war on private education?

So the choice is really between Dr Gonzi and Dr Sant, pure and simple.

The leader of the most focused and successful government against the bumbling leader of the party who blames its superficiality and unpreparedness on misprints and failed computers.

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health, the Elderly and Community Care.