NEWS | Wednesday, 01 April 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Eddie Fenech Adami was a transformational politician who in 30 years changed Malta politically, socially and economically.
ROGER DE GIORGIO looks back upon his 30-year career

In today’s Malta, it seems all too easy to underrate the domineering influence Eddie Fenech Adami has had on shaping Malta’s recent political history. His story is that of hardship, resilience and ultimate triumph.
A by-product of his times, when violence, intolerance and partisanship were the order of the day, he was elected leader of the Nationalist Party with the avowed aim of burying the stigma that his party was neither close to the working class nor committed to social reforms. He remained a party man enjoying a high credibility rating from an electorate, allowing him to win five general elections and a EU referendum. His name is associated with the demise of the worst excesses of Mintoffianism.
The contribution of Dr Fenech Adami may be divided into different periods, from leadership of party to Prime minister, the first 10 years at Castille, and the long road to enter Europe, the loss of the 1996 election, the come back to government, the last years as Prime Minister and the presidency.
The first years as leader were characterised by his determination to reform the party both administratively and ideologically steering it successfully from a conservative force to a Christian Democratic party. He strengthened the party brand by placing social issues and rights of workers far up on the political agenda. He overcame prejudice against the party culminating in the perverse electoral result of 1981 when his party won a majority of votes without a majority of seats, which provoked the ensuing five-year battle for majority rule.
In this difficult period he was the bulwark to restore democracy in the country through peaceful means in spite of the provocations treats and insults both he and his entire family had to undergo. The attack on his private residence was the tipping point, which galvanized the silent middle class into action. The name Eddie was synonymous with change. The perverse result of 1981 led to weekly mass meetings and the risky decision to boycott parliament, which served to highlight the irrelevance of the highest institution of the land boycotted by the people’s representatives who had just won a majority endorsement.
There followed five difficult years in which were it not for the wisdom and cultural breaks of the leaders of the Nationalist party the country could well have drifted into civil war. Sense only prevailed after the reckless killing of Raymond Caruana, which had served as a wake up call especially to Mintoff and his cabinet that a way out of the impasse had to be found. The changes in the electoral law after numerous discussions between Mintoff and Guido Demarco. Sanctioning majority rule swept Fenech Adami into Castile.
On assuming the reins of power he immediately embarked on a reformist project, which served to lay the foundations of a modern European democracy entrenching the European convention of human rights, liberalisation of the economy and pluralism in the media. A number of his decisions smacked of real politik as the decisions related to five national days and limitless funds thrown into the dockyard to buy industrial peace.
My recollection of this gentleman is of a stickler for time, a meticulously punctual person, who would enter a meeting with a clear agenda in his mind, reading through to the minutest of detail, any memorandum presented. His hallmark was his decisiveness and resilience in seeing things through. A listener who during a conversation would rarely express an opinion leaving his interlocutor guessing the meaning of his periodical nod of the head. In his own words he would decide an issue ‘by cold logic uninfluenced by a sense of emotions or personal friendships’. He realised all too well that his was the loneliest job in the land. He was obsessed not to allow himself to be swayed by a sense of popularism. He was prepared to suffer unpopularity when mushrooming lifestyles like divorce and co-habitation impinged upon his principles and values. Although conscious that he may have been out of synch with a growing secularisation, he resisted and affirmed that anchorage of values and principles were sacrosanct. He would proudly affirm that succumbing to secularisation would lead to a loss of our national identity. A listener and follower of media news and current affairs broadcasts allowed him to gauge public discussion, and with the updates of his driver and daily pollster Charles Borg [is-sunnara] gave him the pulse and feel of what the ordinary man in the coffee houses was talking about.
His third and last administration focused exclusively on EU membership, with hard decisions left on the back burner or sacrificed on the altar of the over-riding national interest, Inevitably unpopular or controversial decisions regarding the banning of spring hunting and fiscal discipline, environmental issues were simply not tackled and left to his successor to handle. That said, the EU referendum – and soon after the general election – endorsement were his finest hour.
The decision to accept the Presidency was not without controversy. While swathes of public sentiment were against the longest serving Prime Minister being nominated President, many could not understand what ever motivated Fenech Adami to accept this ceremonial post especially since in all his life of public service he was in the driving seat. While uncomfortable with his decision, I cannot find an iota of fault in the way he carried out his functions.
To my generation, Eddie Fenech Adami’s idealism and sense of hope inspired us in the most difficult of times. He deserves our heartfelt thanks.

rdegiorgio@mediatoday.com.mt

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.