It’s my party, and I won’t cry because I don’t want to

I have kept a close eye on Maltese politics for the past 16 years or so. It's been a rejuvenating experience, let me tell you. A little like watching cartoons... you automatically feel younger, because it's the only way to make any sense out of what you're seeing.

But let's not digress so early. One thing that struck me this past week is how very far removed from everyday reality Malta's political leaders have really become. A good example was Adrian Vassallo's poignant farewell to politics last week... in particular, the following detail: "I have expressed my opinion/intention to my party leader over two weeks ago and as yet have received no direct reply...."

I won't comment about Adrian Vassallo's political career, other than to say that - while it is difficult to imagine two more dissimilar Vassallos than the ones named 'Adrian' and 'Raphael' - I have always rather liked the way he consistently stuck to his own views, no matter how utterly discordant they had always been with the PL's official policies on pretty much everything.  

But that's just a passing observation. What really interests me about Adrian's adieu is that there is a direct parallel immediately across the floor. Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono (you may have heard the name before) has repeatedly claimed that he also tried - unsuccessfully - to resign from the party at least three times.

And in all cases, the reaction was the same. No acknowledgement. No reply. No 'Sorry to hear that, let's meet up and talk about it', etc. etc. Instead, just a wall of silence from the party administration... which indicates that, for all their claims to 'want to listen to people', to want to 'cosy up to us in our kitchens'... your typical Maltese party leader only has ears for people when they tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Tell him anything else - like: 'I disagree with you, and think you ought to change tack'... and you can rest assured that the same people who yesterday wanted to eat at your breakfast table, will suddenly refuse to acknowledge that you even exist.

And the closer you look, the more ubiquitous this attitude seems to be. Some of you may recall how Joseph Muscat became leader of what used to be the 'MLP' in June 2008. He immediately embarked on re-branding Labour (now suddenly called 'PL') as a 'progressive' party... even as Labour MPs like Adrian Vassallo were heard saying they would "rather live in Iran".

Well, the question practically asks itself. Did Joseph Muscat ever bother asking his MPs what they thought of his 'progressive' ideas? I doubt it, seeing as how a number of them (not just Vassallo: also Marie-Louise Coleiro and Carmelo Abela) went on to openly oppose divorce in last year's referendum campaign.

Moreover, did Dr Muscat ever ask Labour voters for their opinion? The same Labour voters who had convincingly elected Adrian Vassallo from the ninth district in every election since 1996... and whose grassroots supporters have (let's face it) always been more conservative than their Nationalists counterparts?

My guess is that: no, he didn't... and probably for the same reason that he never replied to Vassallo's resignation letter. He doesn't need to do any of that, you see. He is 'Il-Mexxej' ... and "what Il-Mexxej says, goes". 

Over to the PN, and: my, what a surprise. It's exactly the same. Did Lawrence Gonzi ever bother consulting his constituents before transforming the PN into an anti-divorce movement? Of course not. Why should he? Not only was he also the 'Mexxej'... ... but the party itself had been rechristened and reinvented as nothing more than an extension of Lawrence Gonzi himself. So who can blame him for assuming that, if 'GONZI' said he was against divorce, the 'PN' that had been surgically attached to his name would have no choice but to follow suit?

And just when you thought this 'papal infallibility' sort of attitude was limited only to the bigger parties... it suddenly starts manifesting itself in AD, too. Last week, a certain Henrik Piski abruptly resigned from Alternattiva Demokratika over an apparent ideological difference. Piski argued that AD had moved too far to the left of the political spectrum; that, with its insistence of placing worker's rights at the centre of its political agenda, the party had lost sight of its raison d'etre, and was beginning to sound like a neo-Marxist movement. 

Reading about this online I found myself vaguely sympathizing with his concern. I have said this publicly elsewhere, so I'll keep it short here: but I was under the impression that AD was green, not red; and in any case: if I wanted to vote red, I would quite frankly cut out the middle-man and go straight for the real thing.

But what struck me in this case was how similarly the Green party reacted to Piski's resignation. Apart from a curt statement by Michael Briguglio that 'I have no apologies to make...' - which was odd, because nobody really expected any apology - the general attitude I encountered while discussing this online was: 'Houston, we don't have a problem'.

Trotting out a vague reference to 'social justice' as one of the six pillars of Green identity, the party simply ignored all tentative suggestions that - well, maybe this Piski fellow has a point after all. Maybe AD has indeed drifted too far to the left, and now needs to be reeled back in. And who knows? Maybe there are more traditionally Green voters out there who agree with Piski than AD will now give credit for... and who feel alienated by a policy direction that seems more concerned with representing socialists (who incidentally already have their own party) than anyone else.

Compared to all the other recent cases of 'ignored resignations', the parallels were simply too close for my liking. It might be worth reminding all three party leaders that - as Gonzi learnt to his cost last year, and Muscat may also discover one day soon - political parties exist independently of their precious 'Mexxeja'. They were there before their current leaders took over; and will (barring unlikely eventualities) continue to exist after their current leaders are no more.

So before taking any unilateral decision regarding what 'your' party represents... my advice would be to first find out whether 'your' voters actually agree. Just a small suggestion...