Preferred, privileged, preposterous

To be Opposition leader is not merely about trying to oppose anything that Government proposes. It is also about projecting an image of how the same person would behave if he or she were to become Prime Minister.

Recent pronouncements by the Opposition leader are, to put it mildly, very worrying and the fact that he has persisted with his statements even after being heavily criticised by many independent organisations proves that he has no regrets over his utterances and would keep treading where angles fear to do so.

His track record as Prime Minister between 1996 and 1998 proves the same point: once he says it, he goes on with it. If others misunderstand him, that is their problem. It is probably because they would not have managed to match his intellectual prowess and the least they could do is to make an act of faith and leave it all up to him because he knows best.

Addressing the General Workers Union congress recently, Dr Alfred Sant pointed out that this union would be a 'privileged partner' of a future Labour government. It is no coincidence that this speech was being made at the same congress where Labour activists were making sure that the union's militant faction made a clean sweep in its council elections.

It is not that long ago that the Labour Party and the GWU were blissfully wed, and even if that marriage was officially brought to an end, it is clear that other forms of partnership have been established since then that give the union a preferred and privileged status.

No amount of clarifications can counter the main message given by the Opposition Leader at the GWU congress. The clarification sent in by the MLP's media executive quoting the 'exact' words used by Dr Sant only reaffirms the point being made here. The exact words are: "the Labour Party will be committed to involve all those of good faith. Foremost in this call comes the GWU, which always was and remains a privileged partner in the movement of the left".

As George Orwell would remind us: all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. In this case there are different levels of good faith, which incidentally would have to be gauged directly by a Labour government. If the union dealing with such a government is the GWU, then it "remains a privileged partner" presumably because its good faith is even better!

The "explanation" that the reference was being made to the movement of the left and that if the other unions so wish, all they have to do is join that movement where they are most welcome, only makes matters worse. It implies that one is preferred and in the process privileged depending on one's choice of political allegiance.

One would have thought that by 2005, the MLP would have outgrown its ideological bias, and would at least not use that bias to differentiate between different partners with which it would wish to work as a government in providing employment. Making such a statement in 2005 means that the old skeletons in Labour's cupboard are very much alive and kicking and only too eager to walk about the corridors of power with a vengeance if ever Labour were again to be entrusted with governing our country, as it was between 1996 and 1998 when Dr Sant was Prime Minister.

The reference to providing employment is not hypothetical since the reference to this privileged partnership was made specifically within that context. Would you have imagined until some days ago that a political leader in this country aspiring to become Prime Minister would be talking in one and the same breath about job creation, privileged partnerships and the movement in the left? You would certainly be excused if until some days ago you would have thought that this is the kind of old-fashioned hype and clichés that no longer figure in the way we conduct our business. Passing on this kind of preposterous message makes the Labour Party a political dinosaur.

We should really be grateful to Dr Sant for making it clear that New Labour has suffered an early death. The language is not only reminiscent of Old Labour but also evokes a way of governing. Dr Sant did not mince his words. He said, "the General Workers Union always was and remains a privileged partner". He was speaking about how he would run the show in the future just as much as he was speaking about how Labour ran the show in the past.

One recalls the days when the GWU was invited to form part of the Cabinet. The justification then made was the same as that being given by the Labour leader now - it was to create jobs, to defend workers' rights. The fact that in those days jobs were only created in paramilitary organisations and that workers' rights were never so trampled upon is not important to the proponents and defenders of the privileged partnership status.

Michael Parnis, one of the deputy general secretaries of the GWU, writing last Friday in the union paper l-Orizzont was only too happy to defend Dr Sant's speech, adding that in his opinion Dr Sant made one mistake - "that of being honest and stating what he feels and the truth".

He also wondered whether Dr Sant is to be criticised for stating that he feels 'at home' at the GWU congress, justifying his argument further by reminding us "that the majority of our (GWU) delegates are also active members of the Labour Party is no secret."

It is no wonder that so many unions that respect the principles of freedom and autonomy of trade unions condemned Dr Sant's pronouncements in no uncertain terms. Among other independent union leaders, Gejtu Vella, secretary-general of the UHM, was right to point out that politically loaded statements did not help to boost the economy. "The national good cannot be parochial or sectoral. We need to generate work and improve social justice, not labelling. Politics nowadays do not stem from the ideologies of parties but from the needs of the country."

Referring to the GWU as a privileged partner is not the only preposterous statement made by the Opposition leader in the past few days.

Only recently he was quoted by Malta Today as declaring that the national interest comes before anything else, even human rights, with reference to irregular immigration. Those who genuinely believe in democracy would immediately assert that human rights can never be seen as ranking behind any other consideration.

Human rights are entrenched in our Constitution and apply equally to Maltese persons and foreigners. The role of the State is to protect and safeguard the human rights of one and all. As the expression itself implies, there are rights that are innate in each and every human being precisely because that person is a human being.

Dr Sant in this case has tried to make the argument that if there is a national emergency, Malta would not have to abide by all its international obligations, also making the point that he would be prepared to take unilateral action to stem the wave of irregular immigration in case of a crisis, but at no stage indicating precisely what those unilateral actions are all about.

If the people are to be able to judge between different options of how the country should be governed, they are at least entitled to know exactly what is on offer. Otherwise they would merely be treated to riddles that can either mean everything or else mean nothing. It's like trying to make a statement that somehow appeals to all since it is up to the recipient to interpret it as he or she likes.

Does anyone have the right to know what Dr Sant has on his mind exactly? Perhaps the privileged partners can ask the question and pass on the privileged information to the preferred among them.

Politics requires a professional, open and honest approach. Preposterous statements do not lend much to the credibility of the person making them. The privilege to make preferences belongs to the people. We all have the right and duty to follow the statements and actions of the country's different political leaders to make our own judgments.

info@franciszammitdimech.com

www.franciszammitdimech.com