To have a change in government is an elementary exercise in democracy. To retain a government in power at all costs is perpetual mediocrity, where the citizen surrenders his democratic rights to a handful of politicians whose only interest is in holding onto the seat of power.
The local political arena is rife with contradictions. The politician in power reigns supreme; parliament is totally dominated by the majority party and the conservative press criticises the opposition more vehemently than the government.
After 20 years of the same type of political opportunism and lack of ideas, a change in government would be more than a blessing.
Very often, opinion columnists compare leaders, but fail to grasp what each party stands for. The Labour Party embarked upon an alternative government strategy years ago. Policy documents have been quasi totally ignored by the press, and the only persons who seem to know what a Labour government stands for, are those few hundreds who have met the Party leadership to discuss issues relating to their organisation/association.
For many it would be tedious to read through detailed documents and Labour would be doing the electorate and itself a favour if it circulates proposed plans in note form and more digestible style. Labour is accused of offering no new ideas but in reality these critics are either too prejudiced to absorb them or else they have a hidden agenda. It is also true that Labour has to surmount the tight gate-keeping of certain sections of the press which are betraying democracy.
Instead of directing an objective discussion of issues, political commentary is shrouded in a personal tone with virulent attacks on personalities. When the Sant government tried to introduce new ideas, some of its own supporters protested the departure from old ways of doing politics. Gonzi promised “new ways” but has ended up defending his own ministers against accusations of corruption and charges of maladministration. His antagonistic tone betrays his true character and have confirmed that this government has become a truly lame duck.
That’s why we need a change of government. Ministers have been there for too long; the country has lost vision and is lagging behind in many respects on the international market. Corruption is rearing its head every single day with apologists hailing such discoveries as “transparency”.
To make up for incessant squandering, the government is squeezing our pockets through heavy and innovative taxation measures. Our standard of living is declining nothwithstanding pro-government propaganda of a feel-good factor. The situation has become so desperate that the only way left for us to celebrate success is by attending a coffee morning or circulating the hospital in a toy train.
The country needs more external investments, a thorough clean-up both physically and morally and a more liberal and modern approach to social problems which are eating up our deserved happiness. The time has come for social policies which are totally devoid of yesteryear dogmas and narrow mindedness.
Socialists have through the passage of time been criticised for rushing through things, but all over Europe they proved to be the vehicles of modernism and change. In Malta, Labour has challenged established icons and introduced social reforms that created a new society. Social justice became the norm and it is no surprise that people expect the comfortable umbrella of a welfare state.
However, through its policy documents Labour has made it amply clear that to sustain the reassurance of a welfare state it has to create an equivalent mass of wealth to sustain the economy.
It would not be easy to administer a country after a 20-year-old government. The forces of change would meet bitter criticism, confrontation and resistance. A Labour government should not design a 20-year programme but a much shorter one, which is more effective, sharp and aimed at a thorough transformation of old structures.
We are desperate for tax reforms, social housing and most of all, job creation. New civil relationships have developed which need regulation. Labour was not afraid to introduce civil marriage and should not shy away from its responsibility to legalise relationships outside marriage. Hundreds, if not thousands of couples who have had the misfortune of a marriage breakdown should have the courage to vote for change. The Nationalists are too conservative to come to their aid and a Labour administration should live up to their aspirations and expectations.
We are desperate for change at a time when we cannot have a worse government. After nearly 20 years in opposition any political party could deliver more and better than the present administration.