Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1500833
OPINION 12 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 7 JUNE 2023 IN my last article, I highlighted a specific moment in Lou Bondi's interview with the Prime Min- ister last week – where Robert Abela expressed 'discomfort' at a recent abortion conviction – but looking back, I realise that there was a heck of a lot more to com- ment upon, in that interview. Like that other moment, for in- stance, when Lou asked the Prime Minister to comment about the apparent 'Jekyll-and-Hyde com- plex' that – according to him, at any rate – still plagues Maltese politics, to this day. In Lou's own words: "People tend to criticise political wrong- doing [...] when their own par- ty is in opposition. But then, the government changes; and the same people seem to shut their eyes, and cover their ears, to everything they previously used to criticise. Their sense of 'what's right and wrong' seems to change, depending on which par- ty is in government at the time. Your thoughts?" Now: had Lou Bondi asked that same question, at almost any other point in the past 30 years (which, to be fair, he often did, throughout his long career as a journalist) I would have no doubt agreed with him wholeheartedly. In fact, if there is anything resem- bling a 'central, thematic thread', running through my own output, over the years: it would proba- bly boil down to that exact, same point. Today, however? I'm not sure. And not just because the inter- view itself was based on the find- ings of the 'State of the Nation' conference: which – paradoxical- ly enough – actually point in the clean opposite direction (i.e., that 'political loyalty is shrinking'...) No, there are various other rea- sons why I find myself agreeing with Robert Abela's answer, more than with Lou's question. To quote just the first part, for now: "I don't see things your way. Nor do I believe that the people's judgment changes, depending on whether their party is in govern- ment or not. I believe that the judgment of our people has al- ways been consistently correct, in one election after another. People have always looked at the criteria that they themselves base their judgments on; and those criteria have always been the same: their own quality-of-life..." Once again, however, the same proviso applies: this time, in re- verse. Had Robert Abela said ex- actly the same thing, at practical- ly any other time before today... he would have probably been 'laughed out of the room'. Indeed, there is so much evidence that the opposite is true, that I could almost pick out any policy of the current Labour government, at random; compare it to the same party's previous policies, on the same issue... and, hey presto! Nine times out of 10, you will find that the Labour Party has changed its own ideological di- rection – sometimes (as in the case of EU membership) from one extreme, to the other – with- out ever, it seems, losing even a single vote in the transition. The latest example – Labour's U-turn on 'membership in Part- nership for Peace' (which it now wants to join: 13 years after de- scribing it as 'incompatible with Malta's Constitutional neutrali- ty') – couldn't be more of a clas- sic case, if it tried. This is, after all, the same Labour Party that almost suffered an apoplectic fit, when the Gonzi administration tried to re-activate that applica- tion, in 2010... Yet fast forward the small mat- ter of just 13 years, and... what happens? Why, Foreign Minister Ian Borg suddenly turns around, and – apparently oblivious to even the existence of any form of 'contradiction', whatsoever – cas- ually suggests that his own gov- ernment does exactly the same thing, today! [Note: I say 'the same thing', but there IS a teenie-weenie little dif- ference. For one thing, there was no 'Ukraine war' going on, that I remember, back in 2010. And for another... I mean, honestly, though: what better time, to just consign Malta's neutrality to the scrap-heap of history, than slap- bang in the middle of an interna- tional war - between the equiv- alent of 'two superpowers', to boot! – that might 'go nuclear', at literally any minute?] But that was just an aside. The bottom line is that: this is the same Labour Party that was so fiercely protective of Malta's Constitutional neutrality, when still in opposition, that it 'tor- pedoed' Gonzi's proposal, out- right... not to mention, the entire career of a certain 'Cachia Carua- na, Richard'. How, then, can it so noncha- lantly perform what can only described as 'the mother of all U-turns' – and on the subject of Neutrality, too! You know: 'Mintoff's Baby', and all that! – without so much as even batting an eye-lid; or indeed, expecting any of us to even notice, at all? Clearly, there is a level at which the Labour Party still expects pre- cisely the sort of 'unswerving po- litical loyalty', that would – under normal circumstances – blind its own supporters to even the most drastic of sudden, ideological changes-of-direction... And – up until recently, at least – it had good reason to retain that supposition. It had always 'worked' for Labour, in the past. [Note: yes, and for the PN, too, back when it was in power.] At the same time, however: this is where the situation starts resembling a certain chapter in Douglas Adams' 'The Hitchhik- er's Guide to The Galaxy' (the radio version, if my memory serves correctly)... where a 'me- teor-strike' happens to take out the only part, of an entire space- ship, that was designed to 'as- sume emergency control, in the event of (Oh, dear!) A METE- OR-STRIKE!!'... Or something like that, anyway. The point is... the results of that 'State of the Nation' conference (on top of countless other indi- cations: including our own recent surveys) seem to suggest that the entire premise of the above argu- ment, has been similarly 'taken out by a meteor-strike'. Simply put: the same 'blind po- litical allegiance' that always used to guarantee both parties a cer- tain level of popular support, is now crumbling before our eyes... and precisely for the reasons giv- en by the Prime Minister, above. Namely, that: 'People have al- ways looked at the criteria that they themselves base their judg- ments on: that is to say, their own quality of life'. (And in fact, Robert Abela's very next sentence was: "To me, improving the peo- ple's quality of life remains the primary function of any govern- ment...") All of which raises a rather ob- vious question. If Robert Abela is correct, to state that people have ALWAYS consistently reasoned that way, in all previous elec- tions... what has actually changed, in the equation, to result in a de- cline in political allegiance, only today (and never before)? By Abela's own logic, there can only be one answer, really. It can- not be 'disillusionment with the political parties themselves' – be- cause (let's be honest) that has al- ways been a factor affecting both sides before; without ever really making much of a difference, to election results. Nor can it be put down to a (very real) dissatisfaction with Malta's current economic mod- el... for the simple reason that the Nationalist Party - for all its recent criticism of certain as- pects of that model (namely, the increase in Malta's 'foreign pop- ulation') - is not actually offering the country any alternative that is realistically different, from what we have today. This leaves us with only one remaining variable: the people's 'quality of life'. THAT, it seems, is what a growing number of peo- ple, in this country, feel has 'de- teriorated', in recent years. And some of those people clearly feel it has deteriorated so very dras- tically, that it's time for them to take 'drastic action', themselves. Such as, for instance, what hap- pened this morning: when resi- dents of Zurrieq plastered pro- test banners onto the offices of Labour ministers such as Miriam Dalli (Environment), and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi (Land-Use)... against a local development pro- ject that the Labour Party itself is trying to 'spin away', as the re- sult of the PN's extension of the development zones, way back in 2005/6. Once again, it's the sort of strat- egy that Labour could always comfortably rely on, in the past. And in this particular instance, there are multiple reasons to ex- pect that it should actually work, all the more. Not only is the Zurrieq land that is now scheduled for zoning, part of that notorious 2005/6 ODZ 'rationalisation scheme' (and not only can 'Zurrieq' itself safe- ly be classified - on the basis of countless past election results - as something of a 'Labour strong- hold', to begin with...) ...but the project's architect turns out to be none other than George Pullicino, no less! You know: the former Nationalist Environment Minister, who had piloted that entire scheme, in the first place! And yet, and yet... no amount of 'spin' has succeeded in con- vincing those Zurrieq resi- dents (and I could add other Labour-leaning localities to the list, too: among them, Santa Lu- cija) to vent their anger directly on George Pullicino himself... or, even less, on the Nationalist government he was once part of (in what feels like another life- time: long, long ago). No, indeed. They are venting their anger at the political party which had previously always sup- ported them, in their bid to halt the rape of their own hometown... but which has now inexplicably 'betrayed them': by morphing, 'Jekyll-and-Hyde'-like, into the very opposite of the political party it once was, in their own eyes. (I.e.,: a party which actually WORSENS their own 'quality of life'; instead of 'improving it'...) But that leaves us with yet an- other, niggling little question. Judging by his answer to Lou Bondi's question, above... Robert Abela evidently understands the nature of the problem that is cur- rently staring him (and the rest of the Labour Party) in the face. Why, then, is he not actually DOING anything, to solve it? Party loyalty is on the decline. I wonder why? Raphael Vassallo