As he releases part of his memoirs, MEP and former prime minister Alfred Sant tells Herman Grech the restructuring of the country has failed. 

On February 6, you wrote in a tweet “remembering and writing about the 80s in recent months, I realised how many lessons were to be learned from what happened in those years”. What political lessons have successive governments failed to learn from those turbulent years?

Basically, we need to modern­ise the way our organisations run. And secondly, we need to structure accountability and transparency in a small island society, which continues to experience huge structural changes.

Are you saying we have failed, or have we moved very slowly when it comes to restructuring?

I think we’ve failed. Look at the kinds of problems that have arisen over the last 20 to 30 years, such as in running sectors like the police, the financial system, the energy system, the investment and economic sectors. We have moved forward but the waves have carried us, we haven’t managed the waves.

Do you think it’s down to the same political system inherited since the 80s? Or is it something deeper than that?

I mean the 80s were another wave of transition of change. If you go back to the 50s and 60s, we had a system that was colonial based, totally anti-democratic, totally traditional and pat­riarchal and based on the elites. Those elites in a small island resisted pressure, resisted change. And when the change came, they were sort of accommodated within the old structures.

Who were the elites?

In the past it was the priests, the merchants, the lawyers. Then over the years, the political apparatchiks, the new businessmen, then the businessmen from abroad, the promoters, successive waves integrating themselves into a traditional structure, and we haven’t changed that structure at all.

And since the 60s at least, very few people stray from the party line. We tend to defend our party, and you have politicians sometimes defending the indefensible if the problem is coming from within their own party structures. What was your reaction when there were accusations and proof of deep-seated corruption in the last few years?

Firstly, I’m not convinced that the two-party system is the problem. Because you find it everywhere. In the US, for instance, the Republicans and Democrats are just like cats and dogs.

The real problem is the traditional society, the fact that we live through a system of ‘friends of friends’. You talk about corruption of last few years, but come on, I’ve been in politics for 30 to 40 years. And I’ve been preaching about that – the ‘friends of friends’ – it’s a Gonzi problem, it’s a Joseph Muscat problem, a Mintoff problem, a Fenech Adami problem…

In the last few years, there’s been a big break in terms of economic growth. We haven’t ever had that kind of growth since independence. And obviously, this kind of problem, the ‘friends of friends’ way of doing things just bubbles up. I spent about 16 to 17 years just pushing and showing how things were being done on specific cases. Nobody was interested then. Why?

The proximity between the business community and the political class, though, is becoming really exposed, especially in the last year or two, and especially since Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered. Are you shocked with this kind of proximity?

It’s always been there.

Don’t you think it has become even more emphasised now?

Not really, it’s been more highlighted, because there are interests which basically know how to control it.

Aren’t you shocked to learn of the contacts between some of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder suspects and politicians?

It’s always been there, it’s not a question of being shocking now. It’s always shocked me. But the point is it’s only being highlighted now. And that’s what I find so really Rip Van Winkle about how the media operates these days.

Let’s just say the media is easy to blame because we didn’t expose…

Of course, you didn’t...

I tend to disagree with you though I acknowledge the media has changed. But now when you look at individuals within the Labour Party like Joseph Muscat, Rosianne Cutajar, Edward Zammit Lewis and their connection with Yorgen Fenech, who was known to be the owner of an offshore company, didn’t you try to blow the whistle from within?

You say the media has changed. It hasn’t changed. Look at the Times of Malta, for instance, it’s had the Adrian Hillman problem for the last six years...

Yes. And we reported about it and we’re still reporting it...

There was no report about that at all. It was only the board’s decision that was published by the Times of Malta. So basically, the problem is transparency and accountability. You mentioned the close relationships between politicians and businessmen; it also happened during the Gonzi and Fenech Adami administrations with the Hilis, for example. You had two Nationalist ministers with bank accounts in Switzerland and nothing happened. Friends of friends have always existed in this country. They don’t have any idea of transparency, accountability, conflict of interest…

The anti-corruption mechanism that we have had up to now does not work

…But the bottom line is, unless somebody from within the party starts to blow the whistle, nothing is going to change. Because it’s happened in the past doesn’t mean it’s justified.

It’s not just about blowing the whistle alone, it’s about changing the system. And when you try to change the system, you have to change the organisations that run the system, like the police, for instance.

What would you do with the police?

What I was starting to do in 96 to 98; working hard to reform the police system, on the lines that people now say should be done. That was a project moving forward, changing laws, changing resources, changing administrative focus, independence of the police force. And tied to that, a stronger anti-corruption mechanism. The anti-corruption mechanism that we have had up to now, in my view, does not work.

The only one which could have worked and we were proposing – but nobody wanted it – would have been the system they have in France. You have an investigative judge, with his own resources, able to tackle busi­nesses, able to tackle scandals directly using his own resources in an investigative and executive role. People are afraid to do it in Malta. Why? Because that could undermine relationships, friendships, and that will cut to the bone.

And they’re also worried because this kind of judge could also have his own agenda – politi­cal, partisan, or individual agenda. And you can’t exclude that that could also be a problem.

You were prime minister, you were credited with acting on claims of corruption and on claims of wrongdoing. How would you have reacted if you were faced with a situation like the case of Johann Buttigieg, the former chairman of the Planning Authority, who was found to have told the owner of 17 Black that he was willing to do business together?

That’s a hypothetical question that relates to how the information comes through. I mean, I can’t put myself in the role of the prime minister.

I’m asking you. What would you have done? Would you just have taken his word for it?

This is the whole question, it’s not about taking his word for it. It’s having to look at what the situation is.

It’s very simple. You have a chairman of a Panning Authority, a very delicate post, telling a top businessman “let’s do business together”.

It depends. I need to see exactly the granular feel for the situation. I will not say what I would have done.

Okay, say it’s black and white in front of you as prime minister, and you have a chairman who has been communicating this way with a top businessman. Do you think he should stay in his job?

It depends what he said.

He said he wanted to get into business with the owner of 17 Black.

You have to have the context. I mean, you write plays, and you know how the context emerges and changes meanings. So, it’s not just like that I could take a piece of dialogue from somebody else out of context.

Plays can be fictional; journalism in this case is not fictional…

…I don’t trust other people on this one; I would want to see all the evidence...

I’m using this case because it’s a recent example. The prime minister said he stands by what Johann Buttigeg said…

… Well, if he thinks he should stand by that I will not object to that. I will not stand by what anyone says, including yourself...

Joseph Muscat was your protégé. Do you think he left prematurely? Or did he do the right thing, leaving when he did?

Number one, he was not my protégé. He can move sufficiently on his own, to be able to move forward, which is what he did. And I think he did that very well. I’m disappointed that he left early. I always told him you have to stay where you are until you face an economic downturn, because he was quite lucky to be able to run the show when the economy was booming, which happened because of his policies as well.

Do you think he should have stayed on considering the circumstances?

I think he did the right thing.

When it was started going really wrong in 2019, did any of the party grandees, including yourself, you are a former prime minister, after all, step in to tell Joseph Muscat that things seem to be spiralling out of control…

Well, number one, I do not consider myself a party grandee. And secondly, my strategy since I resigned from leader of the party has been not to give any advice at all, unless people ask me for it. Because I know what can happen, when former leaders try to put in their own thing after having left. So, I took that advice, and I still take it. My line has always been if you wish to have my input, ask for it.

So, I’m assuming they have not asked you for your input.

When they asked me for it, I gave it.

Did you give your input to Robert Abela in any way in the last year?

Yes. I spoke to him a number of times.

What do you think of his performance so far?

I do not judge my successors. But I think he’s doing a good job.

Do you say that in the context of the pandemic? Because let’s face it, he faced a hurricane as soon as he got into office.

That shows he’s a man of steel. His baptism was really one of fire.

And do you think he’s sufficiently tackling issues when it comes to rule of law?

I think he’s doing a good job.

How is this Labour government different to the one you led in 1997?

Well, in our case, we were trying to do lots of things at the same time that people didn’t understand were a necessity. May­be they understand it now but it’s too late. What we started doing was changing the organisation of this country. What has been happening since then is managing Malta’s entry into the EU under the Nationalists, managing the euro crisis, and then managing the economy which started to boom for reasons totally unrelated to the EU.

But unfortunately, that’s my criti­cism of this country. We’re still running it on old engines, old ways of doing things. We think that modernisation means digitali­sation; of course, you have to digitalise, but that’s not the real game. The real game is accountability, responsibility and transparency.

And that we don’t have.

I think people are increasingly understanding that we can’t just let the cowboys run the show

On all fronts?

On all fronts.

And who’s to blame for it? Is it just our politicians, the system, our mentality, our lack of critical thinking?

You have to accept that we are a small society. And a small socie­ty lives through relationships, the person-to-person basis. It’s also religious and cultural. They make for our traditional ways of doing things.

One of the issues you’ve picked up upon is the construction sector, especially in reference to some projects being proposed. Do you think we’ve gone too far where construction is concerned?

Obviously.

Isn’t it about time we restrain some of the excesses of the sector?

Long time ago, not just now.

What would you do if you were prime minister? I’m not going to ask you to speak for Robert Abela. But at this stage, we’ve built an economy built on the construction sector for years. What should happen now, if you were prime minister, knowing the excesses of the construction sector, and knowing that you have to deal with the post-pandemic fallout?

Post-pandemic fallout is going to be something that’s completely different from the construction industry; in economic and social terms it is going to be quite tough. Especially because we’re so reliant on services, and services got the biggest hit until now. Rebuilding that is going to be difficult.

As far as construction is concerned, that’s going to be politically tricky. On the other hand, I think people are increasingly understanding that we can’t just let the cowboys run the show. We shouldn’t just restrict construction, but we should say we’re going to have real regulation and real prohibitions. If it’s ODZ then you can’t do anything. If we’re discussing a flyover for traffic, no – penalise traffic, rather than have a flyover. But that’s got to be done by people who are not involved in construction, by people who are not involved in business.

And yet at the moment we’re seeing the country turned into one big flyover and run by a minister who is intent of building flyovers and has no intention of cutting down traffic. Is there any hope?

I don’t think it’s the matter of the minister, or whoever runs the show; I think it’s the logic of the country or society. One of the (posi­tive) things that’s been happening is in Gozo. All the mayors – blue and red – have come together to say, look, we want to have more control, transparency, discipline, and seeing that it’s coming from Gozo I think shows pressure building up from the bottom up.

So, it is down to civil society to really stand up and shout with one common voice to stop this.

It depends which civil society you’re talking about. Civil society in Malta is also used through the friends-of-friends’ network to do partisan stuff. So I wouldn’t say civil society. I’d say the people, organisations…

Maybe some people also conveniently cite partisan reasons to denigrate certain NGOs. I mean, we have a situation where the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations is effectively questioning the actual set-up of an NGO like Repubblika. On February 8, you tweeted “though some NGOs may be pesky, we need them”. What’s your view with the charge against Repubblika?

I haven’t gone into the dossier. The point is that you have NGOs and NGOs, you have civil society and civil society. But you don’t necessarily trust all NGOs, or all of civil society.

But at this stage, this is looking like almost clamping down on an NGO simply because you might not agree what it stands for.

And unless I know exactly what the fight is, I won’t accept that kind of judgement either.