I refer to the interview with Labour leader Alfred Sant (January 19).
Once more Dr Sant made it clear that when in government he would not lead the country to the good of all or, at least, the majority of Maltese citizens. "The MLP is there to defend the rights of workers," he said. Up to that day I had the impression that this was the job of the unions. So, maybe, the MLP should be turned into a union and leave the political scene. It also means that an MLP government under Dr Sant would base all its decisions on the interest of the workers. Welcome to communism and goodbye to democracy and progress!
In his answer to the question about whether MEPs should be fighting for the good of Malta, Dr Sant pointed out that the party, Labour, comes first. They shall only fight for the good of Malta if it is within the context of their Labour principles. I would like to express my sadness about this. You get the impression that the MLP is much more important than the country the MEPs were elected from. National identity? Forget it!
About the subjects of transparency and healthy discussions within the party, or rather what Dr Sant said about this, I would just like to say that in theory he might really want it. But practically, and young Labour history has shown, it works only to a certain point. Beyond that point criticism is being killed and critics are being immobilised.
The boycott of Where's Everybody? Dr Sant describes as an exaggerated issue. I agree with him that as a democratic instrument it was very much exaggerated - not the discussions about it, but the boycott itself, I believe.
Furthermore, Dr Sant proved the arrogant tendency within his party. About the decision of the MLP's boycott of Where's Everybody? he admitted that he could not defend one of the biggest foundations of democracy - free expression.
Dr Sant: "I was one of those who was not in favour of a boycott... And the majority of people on the national executive and the parliamentary group said let us decide whether everybody or nobody goes". Thank you. The party forbids its members to express their own opinion freely by not going to Where's Everybody? productions. They could have also decided: Don't write in the paper!
I do not want to repeat comments about Dr Sant's interpretation of results of democratic votes, such as the referendum about EU accession. Whether more than 50 per cent or less than 50 per cent voted in favour of Malta's accession to the European Union I will leave it to everyone who can read numbers, figures and tables and who understands a bit about democratic elections.
Then Dr Sant said something about corruption and he accused the authorities of corruption without mentioning names. Dr Sant: "These people are working all the time on a 'friends of friends' basis and they want their friends to get the contracts". Dr Sant, you are absolutely right! But would it be different under a Labour government? I have my serious doubts about it. Malta is too small and the two-party system with its rivalry is too strong to make big improvements in the fight against corruption. Maybe and hopefully the EU and Brussels will have a better influence on these things!
Later in the interview Dr Sant once more made it clear he will never admit a defeat. So probably he will remain leader of the opposition for the next 50 years. Because only by admitting defeats and mistakes can a person improve and make progress.
At the end of interview, Dr Sant claimed that Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, Dom Mintoff and Richard Nixon stayed on after having lost two elections. If you consider general elections and presidential elections only, he is right only about Mr Mintoff. But, probably, Dr Sant also took into account elections for school head-boys, mayors, party leaders and other minor polls. Only Mr Mintoff was rejected by the electorate on two consecutive elections and stayed on. What a coincidence: Mr Mintoff is also Maltese and was also MLP leader, like Dr Sant.
All this, the disregard to democratic values, the lack of national identity and the ignorance, as well as the lack of knowledge of political history make Dr Sant and his MLP not electable to me. I might share this opinion with other people. Time will show us.