There is no doubt that the leaders of the two main political parties are very intelligent people. Neither of them is infallible. That is as far as similarities go when it comes to leading these islands.

It is now possible to compare like with like. The most glaring difference between the two leaders when in office is the fact that the Labour leader was not in a position to complete his term at Castille, and ended in failure after he called for a vote of confidence. As we all recall, it was a member of his own party that brought him down for valid reasons. On the contrary, Dr Lawrence Gonzi, as Prime Minister, has succeeded in bringing his term to a successful end, with the country experiencing one of the best periods in the post-Independence era, politically, socially and economically.

The current Prime Minister inherited his office four years ago, after Dr Eddie Fenech Adami, as Prime Minister, had completely cleaned the mess that former socialist governments left behind them in 1987. Dr Gonzi had a difficult task ahead of him, given the formidable challenges the party in government had set itself with the support of the people. He also inherited a solid foundation that made it possible to achieve the desired results.

In contrast, the Labour leader was elected to power by popular support in 1996 but, unfortunately for him, his Party and Malta, such support was based on stunts and gimmicks, and a pseudo-labour platform. But that was not all.

If we analyse the criticism levelled by the Labour leadership against this government and its predecessor, we note that all the arguments are based on policy implementation. It is obvious that the Labour leadership has no grounds for criticising the current government on policy formulation for the very simple reason that Labour came up with all the wrong policies in recent years.

A lot has been written about the question of Labour’s proposal for a partnership with the EU. In essence, Labour’s proposal was a glorified version of Malta’s existing Association Agreement. It was simply a cosmetic change of the status quo. Ten years ago, Labour simply did not believe in real change or that the people of Malta could truly make a new beginning as members of the EU!

Now we are being told that Labour wishes to re-negotiate Malta’s EU accession package. If Labour was not capable of successfully negotiating a simple project in Cottonera in 1998, what credentials can it offer us to show it has the ability to negotiate difficult sectors with all the EU institutions and members states?

Is it possible that the Labour leadership is seriously contemplating raising the issue of opening negotiations with the EU so that when it fails to get a better deal it will have an excuse to make use of Chapter 35 of the Reform Treaty and seek withdrawal from the EU? Why was the Labour leader so interested in the negotiations on the equivalent chapter of the EU Constitution Treaty?

Trust and judgement

Several commentators have stated that in this election there are no major issues involved. If that were the case, then Dom Mintoff was right to complain that the new leadership had robbed the Labour Party of its soul. The former Labour leader could not believe that one of his successors could raise so many taxes, rates and costs for people who could not afford them.

Between 1996 and 1998, the Labour Party in government did not provide us with any striking paradigms of policy implementation within estimated costs, because it hardly had the time to do anything except deal with resignations and internal bickering. Given its past performance, there is no guarantee that a Labour government can deliver anything better, cheaper and on time than the current administration, if at all.

Slogans featuring zero tolerance of corruption are hollow and do not impress anybody. We all remember the time when corruption was institutionalised under previous Labour governments, and the majority of the members of the current Labour Party were part of the system. They gave no evidence of being able to do anything about it!

If the members of the current government are incompetent and corrupt, how is it that the voters of their districts continued to elect them to office? Unlike in former times, we now have a system where the government is at least trying to nip corruption in the bud, and when cases are revealed, mainly at the grassroots level, appropriate action is taken.

There are two main issues in this election, and we ignore them at our peril. One is a question of trust, and the other is sound political judgement. Twelve years ago, retailers and other small businesses were led to believe that they could do away with their cash registers. It is doubtful that they would trust new empty promises again. There were several other sectors, including university students, that were led to believe one thing and found another.

Experience has shown that there is no comparison between the sound political judgement of Dr Gonzi and the major political errors committed by the Labour leader. The Labour leader has never explained to us why he froze Malta’s application to join the EU. If membership was not good for Malta, why did he not withdraw the application as he did in the case of NATO’s Partnership for Peace? Where are the principles and consistency?

Is it possible that such a move was a PRecarious gamble, knowing that no EU enlargement was to take place during his first full term in office? Is it possible that he did not wish to pave the way for a possible succeeding Nationalist government, but kept a window open to reactivate membership himself, had he been re-elected?

The current Labour manifesto (p.32.6.) provides for the possibility of Maltese soldiers participating in UN peace-keeping operations on a voluntary basis. Some of Labour’s proposals are becoming indistinguishable from those of the current government. Why should we trust an unconvincing leadership when we can have the real thing in the proven hands of the current Prime Minister?