Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/972198
maltatoday SUNDAY 22 APRIL 2018 Interview 14 By Raphael Vassallo Your comment on social media yesterday, to the effect that you are 'disgusted' by the latest developments concerning Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, has been interpreted by some [eg. Manuel Delia, etc] as the beginning of a turnaround in Labour's fortunes. 'Even Muscat's supporters seem to be realising that their leader's critics have been right all along...', etc. Is that an accurate reflection of what you meant by that remark? Well, what I said was that: since there is now clear evidence that they [Mizzi and Schembri] have laun- dered money, it should be obvious that, first of all they should resign – that's the least they could do. And secondly; yes, that they should be investigated criminally. However, it must be said that right now, there is this narrative being perpetuated that there has been a breakdown of the rule of law; that this is all Labour's fault; that Labour has brought Malta to the brink, etc. The reality is that this is the same situation Malta has had for the past 30 years. So we have to call a spade a spade. It's true that there is corruption in this govern- ment, and now it seems it is being proven through hard evidence. But it is not true that Labour is part of this new hyperbolic development of the 'collapse of the rule of law'. I would say that we went through even worse excesses in the 1990s, and at the turn of the century, when the PN was in government. We can mention many scandals: the dry-docks, Mid Med Bank... the list would be endless. Of course, I would be in favour of ad- dressing the situation. I would be very glad to have a police force which would start prosecuting these cases, and bringing politicians to court. But let's call a spade a spade. When La- bour was campaigning against cor- ruption during the 1990s, and at the turn of the century, there was a huge, persistent campaign to discredit La- bour; to personally discredit Alfred Sant... the leader of the Opposition who was fighting corruption back then... and in fact, one of the people who was part of this campaign was Daphne Caruana Galizia. Sorry: why would you expect, right now, that Labourites, all of a sudden, will start taking serious note of these issues... when you have created this environ- ment yourself, and have been per- petuating this ideology of corruption for the last 30 years? Things don't change that quickly, I'm sorry... Sorry to butt in, but with the argument you're making now, things will never change at all... No, things will change... things can change for the better. However, if there is going to be any change at all, in a progressive direction, it will come from the Labour Party... But hang on: the Labour Party is in power today. Why is this change not happening? First of all, progressive change has always been brought by the Labour Party in government... Not on this issue, it seems... But now, the Labour Party is in a position to start addressing these issues in civic and ideology terms. Why? Because we have just defeated our common enemy – the National- ist Party – by a landslide... Whom do you mean by 'we', exactly? People who support the Labour Party... Do you identify yourself that closely with Labour? Of course. I have a tribal mentality as well... even though I am very criti- cal of the people in power. But going back to the earlier point: now that we have defeated the Nationalists, now we need to sort out our own things. We have plenty of time, and plenty of opportunity to do this. Be- cause the Nationalists are not a seri- ous contender to the Labour Party in an election. They are not capable of being an alternative government. So we have the privilege to sort out the problems in the PL right now. We couldn't do this in an election campaign. Now, we can start bring- ing in changes to the Labour Party; to improve and to solve the prob- lems that are now undermining the Labour Party in government. There is a flaw in that reasoning, however. Earlier you pointed out that Mizzi and Schembri should resign. Now, that the PL has the perfect opportunity to affect the necessary changes. But the reality we're all seeing is that... it isn't happening. Muscat is still defending Mizzi and Schembri to this day... It's not happening right now be- cause... it's a struggle. Look: one has to understand the mentality of the Labour voter. This is some- thing which the media have ignored for many, many years. Even if our leaders are corrupt... OK? Let's say there are top politicians, in govern- ment today, who are corrupt. Once the English-speaking media, and the Nationalist party – and the ele- ments which are related to the PN – will start attacking Labour on this point... automatically, the hardcore Labour support-base will be galva- nised to support their party leaders who are under attack. Even if there is insurmountable proof that they are corrupt. But... how did we come to such a situation? We have arrived at this point because – and this is something that most of the English- speaking media do not understand – the working class, in this country, has been besieged and exploited, to a great extent, for so many years, that the only sense of security these people can have is in the Labour Party. And this is not about nepo- tism: I'm sorry. This is about basic political survival. For example, you have the Archbishop, right now, persistently and constantly at- tacking the government. He may be right on certain issues, but that is not the point. The Church has waged a ruthless war against the Labour Party, and the working class in general, to the extent that these people have been ostracised from society. This is something we should speak about. The Church shouldn't have the cheek to criticise Labour, when it did all those atroci- ties in the 1960s. The least it should do is apologise... It is ironic to have to play 'the devil's advocate' on behalf of the Church, but... it did apologise. Archbishop Joseph Mercieca apologised for the events of the 1960s: I remember him doing it... It wasn't a serious apology... You mean he didn't go down on his knees and grovel enough? No. But there must be a seri- ous, well-articulated apology that... [pause] you know, people don't un- derstand the suffering that the work- ers' movement went through in the 1960s. This must be spoken about. Because this is why Labour others think and act in this way. Once they are besieged, they will take the side of their leaders, no matter what. Again, the media don't understand this. I know stories from the 1960s, for example, about people who stopped making love to each other – I'm talk- ing about Labourite married couples – because priests used to tell them that it's a sin to make love to each other, and have children, because they were Labourites. There are people who are still traumatised by these things, you know. How can you expect these people to, all of a sud- den, turn their backs on their lead- ers, even if they are corrupt? When these people have been besieged for so many years? This 'siege mental- ity' did not come from nowhere. But that is also why this is a good oppor- tunity to start speaking about these things, and maybe even start criticis- ing the party leaders. Because time is passing; we have a very strong party, which can defeat the Nationalist Par- ty once and for all... But is the only objective of the Labour Party to utterly annihilate the PN? Isn't that just a case of being permanently encamped in your own trenches? ...the working class, in this country, has been besieged and exploited for so many years, that the only sense of security these people can have is in the Labour Party. And this is not about nepotism: I'm sorry. This is about basic political survival SIEGE MENTALITY Let's call a spade a