Manifestly absurd

As preparations get under way for the 48th anniversary of Malta's Independence in 1964, it is perhaps fitting to ask ourselves if the state of the country's political health has improved in the (almost) half-century we have existed as a sovereign State.

The recent funeral of former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff provided a rare opportunity to retrace our steps as a fledgling nation - though of course, as with all things associated with Maltese politics, there is (quite possibly cannot be) no final verdict upon which we can all agree.

But though the jury is clearly still out on Mintoff's ultimate contribution to our identity, the discussion as a whole also served to illustrate that Malta has advanced in leaps and bounds since the dismal social realities of the 1950s and early 1960s.

Given the economic uncertainty currently looming over Europe - and given also the proximity of the next election - one can hardly be surprised that the long-term survival of this same prosperity, painstakingly built up over 50 years, would lie at the very nerve centre of the present government's electoral strategy.

After all, the Nationalist Party is not going through its most confidence-inspiring phase at present (and in a rare moment of humility, Gonzi admitted this last night); and yet it knows it can still rely on a certain widespread apprehension regarding an Opposition that remains something of an unknown quantity in itself.

And this in turn is somewhat surprising, seeing as how the Labour Party's leader Joseph Muscat has now been at the helm since 2008 - time enough to give very clear indications of what policy directions he intends to take in the long term.

Yet Muscat is still very easily portrayed (by the PN's spin doctors, at any rate) as a 'risky gamble'... with all the potential for risk (and hence 'danger') that this connotes in a potential future Prime Minister.

At this point, one may well ask why Labour does not lift the lid on this strategy once and for all, by clarifying its 'roadmap' - Muscat's choice of word, incidentally - ahead of an election in which voters will ultimately decide only on the basis of trust in the parties' respective leaders... there being no overriding concern such as European accession this time round.

Yet Labour has been reluctant to reveal its own electoral strategy. In an interview last Sunday, Muscat often actively dodged questions aimed in this direction. At one point he even said that he would only make his electoral plans public when Gonzi chose to do likewise - little realizing how much this line of reasoning reminds one of certain 'games' that adolescents play, while going through a certain phase in their development.

Besides, this argument stutters on a small but vital detail. Unlike the Opposition, the party in government does not actually need to inform the public what it intends to do at all. This is something the public can generally work out for itself, on the basis that government is most likely to carry on the way it has governed over the previous terms in office.

Up to a point, this places the party in Opposition at a natural advantage - it can more or less say what it likes, without the burden of a record of actions and decisions against which its proposed policies and electoral pledges can be measured.

Not so the party in government - anything the PN now says will automatically invite comparison to its many courses of action over a monumental 22-year period in office... for better or for worse.

Naturally, there are advantages to being the party in government, too. Being in control of the country's coffers and sprawling public sector - and with it, Malta's single largest active employer - brings with it the benefit of being able to back up promises with concrete actions before the election - and not only afterwards, as is the case with an opposition party if elected to govern.

But what remains remarkable about the Maltese system is that, though Labour has the comparative luxury of being able to lure voters with any form of promise (presumably, within the bounds of what is actually possible to deliver - though of course that cannot be taken for granted either) it has so far been singularly tight-lipped about what it actually intends to do.

This is manifestly absurd: much worse, it is a recipe for uncertainty, and 'uncertainty' is in turn the key ingredient in fomenting a culture of fear. Not, perhaps, the fear that some people once associated with Labour: with its former association with political violence and abuse of power, etc. Rather, a fear of the unknown... which can be every bit as effective a political deterrent.

With tomorrow's Independence Day celebrations reminding us so forcefully of our country's recent troubled past, one can only wonder how Malta's political backdrop can still give rise to tension and fear, long after the causes of our previous strife are no longer visible.

From this perspective, one must sadly conclude that in spite of the undeniable material improvements over the past 50 years - in the quality of life, in local aspirations, etc. - there is a purely political level at which Malta has changed very slowly since 1964, if it has even changed at all.