Through a recent article in this newspaper, we discovered interesting information about a species, ethical labour intellectuals, that many of us assumed to be extinct.
It now appears that this species has, in small numbers, survived. Its recent silence had nothing to do with extinction but was, in fact, a case of hibernation. We are relieved that, unlike extinction, hibernation implies, in stages, an eventual full reawakening.
When is this awakening going to gain momentum? The awakening has started but very slowly, probably due to a fear of retribution that will be dished out to any ethical Labour intellectual who dares to openly criticise the party and its leadership.
Now is this fear justified? Well, maybe yes, since this party has a long history of violent behaviour and intolerance towards anybody who antagonises it. When directed at internal critics, this intolerance doubles in viciousness and may lead to expulsion from the party.
Usually a good bashing precedes an expulsion. The much-revered Dom Mintoff was solidly boxed and risked expulsion when, threatening unity within the party, he rebelled against Alfred Sant. Some might say that what occurred served Mintoff right since he is credited with introducing and nurturing severe intolerance within the PL.
We do recall how, prior to 2017, two distinguished, ethical Labour MPs found themselves out in the cold. Most recently, we have seen a newspaper editor take a fall for refusing to toe the line.
So it does take guts and courage to criticise within such a threatening environment. It seems that Labour still embraces the Mintoff mantra of “either with us or against us”.
Labour is approaching an election with a governance performance that has seen the island touching the highest levels ever of corruption, theft of public funds and creation of wasteful hyper-paid fictitious jobs and consultancies.
It hurts to hear about an alleged pilfering of €3 million worth of fines from Transport Malta/LESA. It hurts to see a ‘canvasser’ arrogantly paid an incredible €168,000 per annum for public duties.
One can pick and choose from an unending list of scandalous thieving, spending that varies in value from millions (Vitals), to thousands (superfluous consultancies). The least educated and intelligent of Labour supporters are aware of this straightforward pilferage, they understand what is going on but, still, they tolerate.
It seems Labour still embraces the Mintoff mantra of ‘either with us or against us’
Now, one may ask, how are our more intelligent PL intellectuals reacting to underhand and subtle corruptive interventions that disrupt the performance of vital state institutions? Are they aware that these interventions undermine the ability of these institutions to guarantee democratic and lawful governance?
We have seen repeated aggressions on an ombudsman and the National Audit Office. We have seen laws and regulations dubiously interpreted and applied. So many persons of low repute display undesirable closeness to important people. We are witnessing a worrying messing up of prosecution and judicial processes.
Will a toleration of these negative features continue to prevalently persist unchallenged ?
As we move towards an election, so many surveys are predicting a Labour victory. What is most alarming, however, is an indication that the 2017 Labour majority of 35,000 votes might also ominously increase!
Such an eventuality will confirm Malta as a problematic and shady EU member. Greylisting will take so much longer to shake off. How can this predicament be avoided to allow the start of a slow but steady return to decent normality?
Since a Labour Party in opposition is currently a pipe dream, a minimal objective could be the prevention of an increase in this majority gap. A reduction in this gap would add to the influence of positive Labour intellectuals and that group of moderate, literate supporters.
As they enter the secret ballot cubicle, in the absence of fear, will these people be moved to act?
They might be moved to act if they see an opportunity to discreetly move their party away from very condemnable behaviour, a chance to ease the grip on the party of dubious politicians, criminals, rapacious developers, corrupt profiteering businessmen and other small fry, like thieving canvassers and various party hangers-on.
As they will not be so numerous, these secret rebels, PL intellectuals and concerned groups of Labour moderate voters need not fear that, by their action, they will be risking an imminent return to power of the Nationalist Party. At most, they just might prevent a shameful increase to that 35,000 Labour vote majority.
This significant majority has promoted arrogance and is causing, if I may quote, “... the Labour Party to be ruined by brainless idiots whose only contribution to politics is simply repeating what they are presented with by the Labour media”.