Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1467182
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 MAY 2022 OPINION 10 Raphael Vassallo OPINION Finally, Gonzi's 'new way of doing politics' gets a chance… IN his column last Sunday, for- mer Nationalist minister Mi- chael Falzon made a number of rather perceptive observations. He began with: "During his speech at the PN General Council, Bernard Grech did a first by revealing the extent of the Nationalist Party's finan- cial woes. According to what he said, the party's debt has run up to some €32 million and its media arm is unable to make a profit. Moreover, the PN lacks the cash needed to run the campaigns for the European Parliament and local council elections." Then, a few lines later: "This is nothing short of using the par- ty's financial woes to cover up for its political shortcomings. […] He [Grech] also attempt- ed to shift the responsibility of the PN's staggering loss in last month's election onto those who burdened the party with such a huge debt [etc., etc.]" And somewhere in the mid- dle, Michael Falzon also ob- served: "I do not know wheth- er Bernard Grech did this on purpose. If he did so purposely, this was a brilliant move…" Right: that's as far as I'll go with Falzon's article itself… except to say that, if I'm quot- ing it at all, it's only because it opened my eyes to a whole dif- ferent perspective on the entire 'PN debt' saga (and one which, for a change, doesn't even look all that abysmal for the PN, ei- ther.) But having said that: 'I do not know whether Michael Falzon did this on purpose,' either. So let's just stick to the core argu- ment, for now. In a nutshell, it's that Bernard Grech may be hiding behind the PN's staggering €32 million debt, to somehow 'exculpate' himself for the disastrous elec- tion result; and also, to distract public attention from all his own 'shortcomings', as leader. And if so… well, I'm inclined to agree with Falzon's assess- ment that it's a rather brilliant move (in fact, it's almost 'TOO brilliant'… coming, as it does, from someone who displayed absolutely no such political acumen throughout the cam- paign itself; nor even during his entire one-and-a-half year stint as PN leader…) Ah, but this only brings me to the most 'brilliant' part of all. It's not just that this strategy – intentionally, or otherwise – gives Bernard Grech all the ex- cuses he needs, to simply 'pin the blame on others'; it's also that… Well, let's face it: you can't exactly say 'he's wrong' either, can you? For even if Bernard Grech is simply 'twisting the whole PN debt' narrative, in order to save his own skin… it doesn't change the fact that what he is saying is, for the most part, substantially TRUE. Certainly, no one can deny that the Nationalist Party debt was accrued over long, long years – make that decades – of negligence and financial mis- management: around 99.9% of which predates, not just Ber- nard Grech's own (very brief) stint as PN leader; but also that of Adrian Delia before him… and even Simon Busuttil before that. But no matter: if the source of all this debt wasn't already blatantly obvious enough, by now… someone even took the trouble to spell it out for us, in no uncertain terms. This, for instance, is from a news arti- cle yesterday: "One PN official told Times of Malta the party had only started taking its debt problem seriously after 2013…" 'Only after 2013', huh? Gee, I wonder what might possi- bly have occurred that year, to force the Nationalist Party to suddenly acknowledge its own financial situation. Let's see now… the Lance Armstrong 'doping' scandal, perhaps? The Boston Marathon bombing? Wait, I think I've got it! The death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher! (Joking apart: it's as good a re- minder as any, of the 'virtue of parsimony'.) Or was it, on the other hand… doink!... the fact that the Na- tionalist Party suddenly found itself in Opposition, for the first time after (almost) 25 years of uninterrupted power; and that, in this new predica- ment, it simply no longer had its finger on all the government 'buttons', that had previous- ly made its debt-mountain so easy to just… ignore? And to be honest: it's not as though we even needed any ad- ditional confirmation. It should have all along been fairly obvi- ous, just by looking at the list of PN creditors (or at least, the ones we actually know about). The Inland Revenue; The VAT Department; ARMS Lim- ited… I mean, how else is it even possible to rack up debts of over €30 million, to those (and other) sources, if not by enjoying long decades of im- munity to such things as 'tax bills'; 'water and electricity bills'… and, well, just 'bills' in general? And what better way to ac- quire that sort of immunity: if not than by simply occupy- ing the seat of a government which… Bingo!.. just happens to also either OWN all the en- tities to which it owes money (e.g, Enemalta; the Water Ser- vices Corporation); or else can simply re-write, at will, the en- tire legislative framework gov- erning all the others... Meanwhile, as a side-note – and also, in the interest of maintaining at least the sem- blance of political balance, etc. – this also explains why the Labour Party's correspond- ing debt, to precisely the same creditors, is still so 'small' by comparison. For let's face it: it took the Nationalist Party a good 23 years in government, to accumulate a debt of €32 million. Labour's only been at it for seven years… and by its own admission, it already owes €10 million in unpaid tax and utility bills. Honestly: I don't think you need to be Alan Turing to compute all the possible per- mutations. The outcome al- Bernard Grech now has a spectacular opportunity to actually deliver – where so many of his predecessors have manifestly failed – on that immortal promise by Lawrence Gonzi in 2004: 'A new way of doing politics', remember?