With Alfred Sant now hopefully fully recovered, and due to address the MLP general conference this morning, the last hurdle to calling the general election will have been removed.
The Prime Minister was right not to take advantage of Sant’s medical condition by announcing an election during his convalescence period. But now that the leader of the Opposition is out in the open, himself urging the Prime Minister to call the election, Gonzi would be wrong not to take up the challenge.
It is in the national interest that the election date is set. If, as many predict, the Prime Minister will go for a March election, the setting of the date this coming Wednesday would remove the sense of uncertainty which is slowly but surely gripping the country. It would also allow citizens to plan their holidays, and get on with their lives, as normal democracies tend to be. Businesses too will be able to plan around the disruption an election inevitably brings.
This election has a particular ring about it: the first since membership of the European Union, the first as leader for Lawrence Gonzi, and the fourth for Alfred Sant. It is an election where the policy dividing lines are not at all distinct, and unlike previous elections there is no single national issue.
Both parties need to clarify their major respective battle cries: continuity and change. The Nationalists must explain concretely what they mean by continuity lest it be interpreted as simply retaining the same team and same way of doing politics. The Labour Party’s call for change also needs to be clarified. To date, the call for change means little more than a changing of the guard with loyal Labourites being placed in strategic positions instead of loyal Nationalists. We have heard little whether this change means a radical transformation, introducing, for instance, new marriage laws independent of Vatican interference; independent scrutiny of appointees; increased transparency in the tendering system; the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act, and the outlawing of all development in green areas.
The media too must challenge each and every statement, not just of Government but also of the Opposition, as the alternative government. Once the election campaign is up and running, equal treatment should be meted out to both parties. This involves probing and questioning the policies of both without fear or favour. How can Labour commit itself to reducing the surcharge by half when the price of oil is still on an upward trend? How can Labour commit itself to reducing taxation on overtime, when all economists are claiming this can give rise to abuse and wreak havoc to our national accounts?
On another level, the Nationalist government must also consider that many of its own electoral targets are based on a projected economic growth of over 4%: an eventuality that is looking less likely, given the international economic climate of our times. How will the PN deliver on its promises of improved living standards, if the expected growth rate fails to materialise?
More than a battle of ideas, however, the two parties appear to be gearing up for a presidential style campaign, based on the cult of the leaders’ personality. The PN feels it has a winning card in Lawrence Gonzi, who is genuinely liked by his party grassroots and has also captained a successful economic turnaround, putting paid to all the previous talk of “il-ħofra” once and for all.
But Gonzi has also noticeably failed to deliver on a promise of doing politics differently when he took over the helm in 2004: a few under-performing, and sometimes badly behaving, ministers have been retained, giving the impression of a man not fully in control of his own government. Essentially, he retained the Cabinet chosen by his predecessor.
This in turn has provided a potentially winning card to Labour – the public thirst for change – but then again there is little evidence of new faces in its own ranks, other than a team which has already been rejected by the people, starting off with its leader. Labour must explain concretely what it means by “change”, having itself refused to change except through embarrassing U-turns when faced with colossal catastrophes such as the EU membership question and the disastrous VAT alternative. Failing to define its idea of change, Labour risks appearing power hungry with no idea of what to do if elected.
The electorate deserves to know clearly what its choices are, but meanwhile, it also deserves some certainty and stability. So, Mr Prime Minister, give us the election date this week.