Try as I might I can never summon much enthusiasm for all this budget hoo-ha. I think that the way the nation goes into budget fever speaks volumes about the lack of interesting things to talk about. The papers will still be churning out big piles of budget supplements for the next two weeks or so and this year the whole ordeal was extended with the appearance of the so-called pre-budget document. I am told that I could have been a part of this if I had only called Castille but jaded as I am, this didn’t thrill me too much. Like Job I’ve come to believe that what the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away and come pre-election year it’s the time for much giving.
Of course I’m pleased about the revised tax bands and other budget goodies, I’m simply hoping that they won’t be revised downwards or snatched back when the time for taking away rolls by. The upshot of my indifference to the budget was that I did not call Lawrence Gonzi with my Christmas wish list and suggestions. Instead I decided to call the man, who, according to the Nationalist world-view is a Socialist Satan and a sozzled one at that. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will prove to be more interesting than the riveting COLA and whatever the social partners had to say about it.
Alfred Sant has been a target of Nationalist jibes since he became a contender for the prime ministerial role. From the infamous “Ma Tistax Tafdah” poster to the recent “His way” advert, he has been portrayed as an untrustworthy, fickle politician who will not hesitate to perform a U-turn if it is politically expedient to do so.
Funnily enough, the same people who criticise Sant for changing his mind on certain issues, praise Laurence Gonzi for doing the same thing. The Xaghra l-Hamra change of heart comes to mind. However, it is not only Sant’s policies, the lack of them or the flip-flopping about them, which get the most flak. It’s him – his personal life, his appearance, his wig, his public performances. First there was that fuss about his annulment, then about his hairpiece and now about what Austin Gatt says is a performance that qualifies for inclusion on “Altered Statesmen” – a programme about drugged or alcoholic politicians.
The insinuations being made in the ongoing whispering campaigns are clear enough – Alfred Sant has a drinking problem. Why, I ask, doesn’t he address this issue openly? Sant thinks it’s difficult to fight a whispering campaign and dismisses the other disparaging comments as “hammalagni”.
“What should I do?” he asks, “comment about Dr Gonzi or Mrs Gonzi? Stoop to the level of the Nationalists? I refuse to play that game.”
I suppose not rolling around in the gutter trading insults about physical appearances is more dignified, but I don’t get the reference to Mrs Gonzi – she seems to be above reproach though perhaps her constant presence may be irritating to the Labour supporters who have no First Lady equivalent to trundle out.
Sant thinks that his appearance is not really an issue with the electorate and that people are more concerned with other matters such as housing costs and social problems. He’s right about that. People would support a leader who looked like Conan the Barbarian if he offered workable solutions for such problems. Incidentally, Lawrence Gonzi has just done a Gordon Brown and appropriated the Opposition’s ideas about subsidising first-time property buyers. Does this mean that the Labour proposals were a good idea, or (more cynically) that both the PN and MLP converge when it suits them to do so?
Recently Nationalist and Labour MPs have looked like a mutual admiration society when it came to whizzing through the Constitutional amendments which ensured that the parties who are in parliament enjoy strictly proportionate representation: a privilege denied to others. Alfred Sant shrugs off the suggestion that this creates two classes of citizens – those whose vote is represented accurately and those whose vote is not. According to him, the amendments have not made it harder for more parties to make it to parliament and the amendments were solely a matter of parliamentary seat assignments.
Does he think that an exclusively two-party system is a good thing, an improvement on the situation prevailing in the 1950s when there were several political groupings? Sant is non-committal. He says it’s ultimately up to the people to decide. Then he goes on to mention a conversation with a politician from Luxembourg who cited the reforms which had been possible because of the coalition government there. Still, he won’t say whether the same benefits could be had by having a coalition in Malta – it’s the people who must decide.
This “people deciding” thing can be a convenient screen behind which to hide. This emerges from Alfred Sant’s position – or lack of it – about the introduction of divorce. He says that in 1996 there was a strong civil movement in favour of divorce which lead him to appoint a commission to study the state of the Maltese family and to offer suggestions about the situation. Then there was the backlash with extensive leafleting with pamphlets juxtaposing Alfred Sant’s allegedly diabolical insistence on introducing divorce (“Alfred Sant ma jisma’ minn hadd”) with the bishops’ stand against its introduction. The pamphlets were unsigned but Sant seems to have no doubts as to which usual holier-than-thou suspects was doing the disseminating. He keeps one of the pamphlets in a silver frame perhaps to remind him of Opposition perfidy and is justifiably bitter at such campaigns.
Still, his position on divorce is now neither here nor there. He says that he will address the manner if there is a civil debate about the matter. With thousands of couples splitting up, I ask, isn’t there sufficient debate about it? Do spouses who are breaking up have to take to the streets with placards for Labour to sit up and take notice? Sant won’t be drawn out. Civil society was much more vociferous about divorce way back in 1996, he insists, and that’s that. I’m still not enlightened as to what it takes to put the introduction of divorce on the political map. The PN have come up with their cohabitation fudge and the “d” word is just another unmentionable.
What about state-funding of political parties? If the people don’t want it, then we won’t go for it Sant says. Well, it shouldn’t be on the cards then – recent surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of respondents think that paying more for their politicians is definitely a bad idea. The Labour Party receives its fair share of donations from contractors. I put it to Alfred Sant that the MLP can make no more of a claim to being totally unattached to pressure from such quarters than the PN. He disagrees, quoting the “ftit minghand il-hafna” argument, and mentioning the phone-ins and fund-raising campaigns that the MLP carries out throughout the year. So why not publish the names of your donors?
“We agree with the recommendations of the Galdes report,” he answers, “we’ll act in accordance with it if it is implemented.” Why not publish even if the PN doesn’t? “We agree with the Galdes report,” Sant reiterates.
At this point, the Labour version of events would have celestial music playing in the background while the Leader expounded on the virtue of his way. The Nationalists would be scribbling furiously about hoofs, a forked tail and horns (protruding from a toupee of course) with an all-pervading smell of brimstone. I think I’ll opt for some bland purgatory – anything better than the extremes being conjured up at the opposite sides of the political spectrum.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt