Ghosts of the past

As any self-respecting exorcist will confirm, there is an inherent danger in summoning up evil spirits from the past. After all, it is always going to be in the nature of evil spirits (metaphorically speaking, naturally) to wreak evil... even if the intention behind their summoning was originally to do good.

Much the same applies to the Nationalist Party's sudden renewed interest in re-evoking the ghost of events that took place up to 30 years ago. Naturally the PN is perfectly entitled to present its own view of history, and to be fair there is a good deal of truth to its claim that those events deserve remembrance.

But there is considerable difference between 'remembrance' and 'reinvention'; and judging by the purely selective references we have seen to date, much has clearly also been forgotten.

For instance: while the murder of Raymond Caruana and the subsequent frame-up of Pietru Pawl Busuttil is now presented to us (not unjustifiably) as the very nadir of political villainy... there has conspicuously been no reference to the fact that the protagonists of those events were afterwards retained, sometimes even rewarded by the incoming Nationalist administration. 

It seems to have been forgotten, too, that the man who arraigned Busuttil for the Caruana murder, on what we now know were trumped up charges, was none other than Police Commissioner John Rizzo: promoted to his present position under a Nationalist administration.

Naturally one can always argue that the arraignment does not, of itself, directly implicate Rizzo in the crime. But if the PN deliberately chooses to shine a spotlight directly on the events of 25 years ago, it will de facto also bring to light the many inconsistencies and unanswered questions that still haunt those distant events... leading one to suspect that the version we are now presented with falls somewhat short of representing a true picture of events.

Not only that: but the spotlight also reveals how, with the notable exception of former police commissioner Lawrence Pullicino, few people - if any at all - faced any serious consequences of any kind whatsoever. Even the late minister Lorry Sant, who faced multiple charges for corruption, came away with a presidential pardon in what many believe was a behind-the-scenes compromise for purely political reasons.

Faced with all this, one has to ask: how wise is it, really, to rake up these incidents only now... especially considering that (just like the murder of Karin Grech in 1979, which curiously escapes mention in the PN's version of history) many of these crimes remain technically unsolved to this very day?

Besides, there is another, arguably more cogent political pitfall to this dubious strategy. For yet another question rconcerns the apparent invisibility in those days of the selfsame people who now complain the loudest about the 'sacrifices' the PN had to endure.

Incidentally, these include Dr Gonzi himself. For by reminding us so persistently of the events of the 1980s, the present administration is unwittingly also drawing attention to the fact that the main protagonists in that epoch are all now out of the scene: sometimes having been muscled out by the current coterie, all of whom were altogether absent in the 1980s.

In fact, about the only Cabinet member today who had any notable role in the Opposition under Fenech Adami is Austin Gatt: who was PN secretary general at the time when the political situation was at its most volatile. Other activists have since been sidelined or bowed out altogether. Examples include Louis Galea, Ninu Zammit and Michael Frendo, among others.

But where was Lawrence Gonzi when stones were thrown, and shots fired, at the Tal-Barrani mass meeting in 1986? Where was Edgar Galea Curmi? Where was Gordon Pisani? Where were today's members of the same PN strategy group that came up with the idea for this campaign in the first place?

Besides, it remains unclear how far we are all now expected to go back in search of present relevance in past events. If the brutish violence of the 1980s is worth remembering for its relevance to today's political reality... and no doubt it is... why not go one step and further, and also revisit the 1960s, and its collusion between Nationalist party and the Church - which incidentally had also resulted in violent disruption of Labour meetings, as well as arbitrary arrests and all sorts of other injustices?

Surely, in the wake of this year's divorce referendum - which also saw a certain collusion between the Church and the PN - this episode alone has just as much relevance to today's political reality, as the events of the 1980s?

From this perspective, it seems Gonzi's point about how the past helps us 'appreciate what we have today' may arguably be more relevant than he actually intended. For the past does, in fact, tell us a lot about what we have achieved today: not least, how very little the present administration actually had to do with any of those achievements... and above all, how quick it seems to be to claim credit for victories that were in reality achieved by others.