Speaking in riddles

I must admit that Dr Alfred Sant's recent startling public dénouement floored me. Asked how he feels he can advise the Prime Minister on the need for changes in the Cabinet when he could not stay in Government for more than 22 short months, Dr Sant 'explained' that there was a parallel between his and Dr Gonzi's problems as brand new Prime Ministers - a former leader of the party was trying to run the show; but Dr Gonzi managed to overcome this difficulty by kicking his predecessor upstairs and appointing him President!

The originality of the plot is mesmerising, except for the fact that it does not exactly fit in with what Dr Sant and his cronies had said when Dr Gonzi became Prime Minister (he is Fenech Adami Mark II) and when Dr Fenech Adami became President (he will run the show from the backstage - or was it behind the wings?).

The very idea that there could be some sort of parallel between the Alfred Sant-Dom Mintoff relationship and the Lawrence Gonzi-Eddie Fenech Adami relationship beggars description.

Dr Sant came out with this preposterous suggestion when he was fielding questions at the end of a press conference during which he 'listed' 23 reasons (after adding another three to what were originally 20 reasons) that, he maintains, explain his call for a Cabinet reshuffle. Dr Sant has been insisting for this reshuffle ever since the great majority of respondents taking part in a poll on The Times Website were all for this reshuffle, whatever it is. When Dr Sant joined the bandwagon, many felt his position was untenable: how could he pretend to genuinely advise the Prime Minister on what course of action is to be taken so that the PN government would regain its lost popularity?

Instead of explaining this riddle, Dr Sant produced his 23 reasons out of his top hat. This is simply a list of counts in a bill of indictment accusing Cabinet ministers of everything that the Gonzi Government has done or not done. How this justifies changing the ministers but not the Prime Minister is a political charade - a riddle to 'explain' a riddle that can only be thought up by Dr Sant's imagination.

Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that Dr Sant's list of points is correct and valid, the only logical conclusion is for Dr Sant to call on Government to resign forthwith and hold a fresh election, or at least, for Dr Sant appealing to the electorate to vote for a change in government at the first available opportunity. But no! Dr Sant's thrust implies that the only person that is not at fault in the 'mistakes' of the Gonzi administration is Dr Gonzi himself, because any Cabinet reshuffle must certainly leave the Prime Minister's position untouched.

These two faux pas came in the wake of Dr Sant's gaffe about the national interest coming before all other considerations. Initially Dr Sant, who was speaking about the African boat people issue, was quoted in a Sunday paper (MaltaToday, September 11) as having said that the national interest comes before human rights. There was no official reaction from the MLP on that paper in the following issue. Instead there were quite some damning comments from the editor of the paper who undoubtedly was sure that that his journalist's report was correct.

This was followed by a damage limitation exercise in the form of attempts at explaining what Dr Sant had meant by at least two Labour MPs - Dr Gavin Gulia and Dr Josè Herrera. Dr Gulia, quite correctly, insisted that Malta should not send back illegal immigrants to countries where their basic human rights would not be respected, something that was the very opposite of the implication of Dr Sant's message about the issue.

Rather late in the day, Dr Sant insisted that he was misquoted and he had never referred to the national interest taking precedence over fundamental human rights. However he persisted in his error - in the proverbially diabolical way - that in times of crises (a caveat added on after what must have been second thoughts), the national interest should prevail over all other considerations.

In my opinion, this type of 'explanation' complicates Dr Sant's position that is becoming more and more unclear. History has shown that too many governments have tried to justify too many unpleasant actions by resorting to the 'national interest' card.

Currently, for example, this card is being used by Iran to justify the violation of its international atomic obligations by failing to comply with the safeguard agreement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which that country is a signatory. The United States has also used this card when it suspended military aid to some 50 countries (including Malta) because they have supported the International Criminal Court set-up without exempting US nationals from possible prosecution by this Court.

My point is that both these amoral actions are being justified by what the governments of the two countries mentioned perceive as being their 'national interest'. So, it is obvious that what Dr Sant meant to say really translates into a declaration of his being prepared to lead Malta into taking amoral positions in the 'national interest', if he is in power!

Speaking in riddles so that everybody understands what he or she would like to understand is one dangerous ambiguous game that Dr Sant is quite deft at playing.

The problem with Dr Sant's habit of speaking in riddles is that no one ever knows when he is being serious or simply being spurious.

micfal@maltanet.net