Sant loses 'all or nothing' gamble - again

The result of the April 12 election has surprised many a genuine Labour Party supporter who thought there was no way Eddie Fenech Adami could lead his party to his fifth absolute majority of votes in six elections - a record that will prove very difficult to equal, let alone to beat.

The particular circumstances that led to this record can certainly not be repeated. Dr Fenech Adami's first three majorities (1981, 1987 and 1992) were obtained as a result of the atmosphere and methods that prevailed during Mr Mintoff's 16-year rule - elements that were rejected wholesale by the Maltese people.

However, Alfred Sant's skilful manipulation of his image in his first years in Opposition put everybody's mind at rest regarding the abhorrent aspects of the previous Labour administrations and this paved the way for a resounding MLP electoral victory in 1996.

This victory was short-lived. It was followed by two successive defeats at the polls for Dr Sant, one just 22 months after his amazing victory and another one after another four and a half years. Somewhere, somehow, Dr Sant had gone horribly wrong.

In both these defeats there is an interesting parallel - in both elections, Dr Sant played for high stakes: he plotted a strategy seeking to win or lose everything. And he lost his "all or nothing" gamble twice.

The 1998 electoral defeat was the result of Dr Sant mishandling both Mr Mintoff and the Nationalist Opposition. Mr Mintoff wanted to have a say in the way Dr Sant was running (or is it 'ruining'?) the country and things came to a head on the vote on the resolution regulating the disposal of public land for the Cottonera project.

The Nationalist Opposition asked for the relevant draft contract to be discussed in the Parliamentary Committee on Financial Affairs and insisted that with a few changes, it would also support the contract.

Dr Sant considered accepting to discuss and reconsider the contract details with Mr Mintoff or with the Opposition as a slight on his authority to govern and decided to resolve the problem by forcing the motion through Parliament after declaring that he would consider the relevant vote as one of confidence.

The rest is history. Mr Mintoff voted against the motion and Dr Sant called a very premature election. In deciding to go to the polls, Dr Sant's ploy was a gamble - to win or lose everything.

To win the election meant he would not only dispose of the public land in Cottonera in the way that he was proposing but, even more important, he would ensure that his authority as Prime Minister was unquestioned. It was either beating both Dom Mintoff and Eddie Fenech Adami in one fell swoop or lose everything. After all, it was he who was chosen by the majority to head Malta's government and not Mintoff or Fenech Adami.

The logic was in his favour and so Dr Sant thought he should win. But Mr Mintoff and the PN played with the people's emotions. Mr Mintoff emphasised that under Dr Sant's leadership the MLP had lost its social conscience and the PN insisted that the proposed contract for the Cottonera project put unnecessary limitations on the public's freedom to enjoy some existing public areas that were to be completely controlled by the private developers.

In both cases, they were right. Dr Sant's avalanche of taxes ignored social factors while after regaining power the PN in government not only adjusted these taxes but also successfully renegotiated the Cottonera project contract to eliminate those aspects to which it had objected. Dr Sant's logic was undermined by the people's emotions. He gambled for all or nothing and he lost everything.

The 2003 electoral defeat was the result of Dr Sant's mishandling of the EU membership issue. He had been insisting that it should be an election and not a referendum that should decide this issue. His logic was perfect: elections are fought on the government's record, an area where any Opposition is bound to score points and so he should win. But, once again, Dr Sant's logic was defeated by the people's emotions, more so as the EU issue had become an emotional issue with Labour supporters publicly declaring their support for EU membership.

Dr Sant had every chance to detach the EU issue from the election by asking people to vote against membership in the referendum but also accepting the referendum result, whatever it was. Instead he played another "all or nothing" gamble: an MLP government plus no EU membership or nothing. He got nothing.

Ironically, Sant's pinning his hopes of victory on an election fought on the Government's record was undermined by his own strategy of ridiculing the referendum and misinterpreting its result. This led to the EU membership issue becoming not only the most important issue of the election but also practically the only issue of the election. Unwittingly, Dr Sant played into Dr Fenech Adami's hands.

It is more than obvious that Dr Sant seems to think that asserting his leadership must automatically entail his refusing to compromise or to accommodate other people's views. This is the root of his failure as a political leader.

Discarding the well-known dictum that politics is the art of the possible, Alfred Sant has tried to do the impossible twice. He has failed miserably twice and he certainly does not deserve to be given another chance.

Mr Falzon is a former Nationalist MP and minister