We just love our political intrigue don’t we?

Alfred Sant writes one article in which he disagrees with the report on why the Labour Party lost and everyone pounces, accusing him of wanting to “do a Mintoff” from the backbench. Personally, I think he would have done himself more favours if he had added even one line to the effect that “we also lost because people obviously didn’t want me as Prime Minister”. But Dr Sant never was any good at swallowing his pride, which is why he is where he is today.

On the other hand, all these dramatic claims of “Aha, you see! The dastardly fiend is back to stir things up!” are a bit OTT. Relax people; Panto season is over.

By George, I think he’s got it

As soon as the leaked news was splashed across the Sunday papers that George Abela was the Prime Minister’s choice for President, the accusations of political scheming began. By nominating a Labour politician, Lawrence Gonzi wanted to beat Joseph Muscat at his own game. By accepting Dr Abela (he hardly had any other choice), Muscat would in effect be removing one of the potential threats to his leadership.

Of course, there is probably more than a grain of truth in both of these suppositions. What is more interesting is the speculation since the presidential nomination was announced, and the questions that continue to be asked.

Who, for example, leaked the information to the Sunday papers? More importantly, what was hoped to be achieved by this? Things happened so fast after that, that by the time Dr Gonzi made it “official” by calling a press conference late Monday afternoon, it was already a fait accompli, with both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party giving the nomination their stamp of approval. Again, they hardly had any other choice.

It has been described as a strategic move of political chess by the Prime Minister because in one fell swoop he trumped Joseph Muscat in the “let’s unite the country” stakes, and at the same time, he deftly removed a possible future adversary. As Georg Sapiano repeatedly and bluntly described it on Dissett, appointing someone to the post of President of Malta is like putting him in a deep freeze. Only with this deep freeze there is no chance of a thaw. Once you have served in this position, kiss it goodbye, because your political career is over.

Muscat, meanwhile, was wrong-footed, because it was not him who came up with George Abela as a possible contender. Although it took him 10 days to bite the bullet, he did what he had to do. (True to form, Dr Sant along with George Vella voted against the nomination – you have to give them full marks for consistency at least).

During the press conference, the Prime Minister confirmed that he wanted to put an end to the weeks of media speculation about who the next President would be. Here again, the names being bandied about were a result of leaks, but others seemed to have been planted. At least that is what Lino Spiteri (one of the names being mentioned) has concluded. Speaking on Dissett, his interpretation was that his name was never on any potential list of candidates, but was merely “leaked” in order to put paid to his chances. Does this mean that the leak of George Abela’s name was done with the same intention?

Oh heck, who am I kidding, do I really care? You see my problem is that when I start trying to think in this “conspiracy theory” way, I just end up giving myself a headache and throwing in the towel.

Ultimately, none of this really matters in the grand scheme of things. It is, frankly, just a ceremonial post. Dr Abela will have to be present at all sorts of State functions and Mrs Abela will have to buy herself a lot of hats.

Leave your baggage at the door

During the discussion on Dissett, the contrast in the body language of the two “opinion columnists” couldn’t have been starker.

Georg Sapiano, shifting and sprawling all over his chair, was barely containing himself because there was so much he wanted to say (particularly about Alfred Sant). Lino Spiteri, however, sat very still, cool as a cucumber, choosing his words carefully (“We are not here to talk about Alfred Sant”) and occasionally appraising Georg with his steady gaze. Lino, of course, was in the awkward position that political analysts so often find themselves in Malta – he was there to give a dispassionate opinion, but ended up discussing his own (albeit unwilling) part in this “plot”.

Georg is hardly a detached observer either – after all, he was a PN candidate in the last election. He made no secret of his dismissive feelings towards Joseph Muscat whom he described as being completely out of his depth, while his adulation of Gonzi as a brilliant politician verged on the nauseating.

There was so much political baggage (and ego) in the studio, it is a wonder that there was any room left for presenter Reno Bugeja to sit down. He even had to put up with being berated by Georg for failing to realise that Lino Spiteri had just handed him a “scoop”.

The programme was replete with references to strategy, chess, backroom manoeuvres and Machiavelli – ah, all that devious political intrigue again. I’ve often thought that the plotting (real or imaginary) that goes on in Maltese politics would make a great film.

You wouldn’t even need any scriptwriters.

With this kidney I thee wed

When a marriage hits the rocks, it can often get very ugly.

Bitter disputes over the custody of the children, the marital home and other possessions take centre stage and there is so much hostility that it is often hard to believe that the couple was ever in love. One man in the United States, however, has taken this to new extremes, claiming that he wants back the kidney he had donated in 2001 to his wife when she needed a kidney transplant. And if he can’t get back the actual kidney, he wants the value of it, an estimated $1.5 million.

The way men and women behave when a marriage breaks down usually says a lot about them as people, and in this case, what it says is that the man (a doctor) has set his sights on the one thing he knows will hurt his ex-wife the most – he has literally put a price on her health.

To be fair, however, there is another side to the story.

He claims that his wife’s ailing health had put a strain on their marriage, and that by donating his kidney he was saving her life and trying to save the marriage as well. But when his wife regained her health, she eventually had an affair and then filed for divorce. Things turned nasty; she refused to let her husband see the children and he hit back with this weird demand to be paid for his kidney.

It is obviously the act of a desperate man who has seen his life fall apart – in fact lawyers have said the bizarre request will be thrown out of court. The husband’s demand for compensation for having saved his wife’s life is a classic example of the pits to which warring couples can go when in the grip of marital fury: “after all I have done for you!”

Nothing is sacred, no holds are barred and both sides scavenge for new ways to deliver below the belt blows. The sacrifices that have been made throughout the marriage, presumably done out of love, are now dredged up as evidence to be thrown in the face of the other party.

However, at the back of this story are the true victims in all this: the children aged 14, 11 and 8 who have seen their parents’ marriage become the centre of a media circus and the butt of inevitable jokes (“he doesn’t have a kidney to stand on”).

The age-old ploy of using children as weapons by not allowing the father to see them is one of the most hurtful things a woman can do, and yet women continue to do this, deliberately and spitefully.

Despite advice by counsellors that parents should set aside their personal feelings and that the children should come first, most battling couples surge ahead, saying unspeakable things in front of their offspring, and bad-mouthing the other half every chance they get.

They don’t seem to care about the emotional scars they are causing to their own flesh and blood. The breaking up of the family home is difficult enough, but in their quest for revenge they will do and say anything to get the child to “be on their side”. Twisting the knife further, they know that by not allowing the father/mother access to the child, they will be paying them back for all the hurt which has been caused.

The result is children who are forever estranged from one parent or the other because too much hatred and venom have been allowed to build up and there was never any real chance for a relationship to develop. Perhaps, in some warped way, alienating children from their father/mother can make a person feel better, making them feel that somehow they have “won”, although I fail to see how.

This is like when couples fight tooth and nail over who gets the house – they waste years of their life in court, their respective lawyers get rich, the children grow up and leave – and yet they will not yield an inch. And for what? A house that has long ceased to be a home anyway.

Because we tend to put such store on “things”, material possessions are often the target of those who have been betrayed. Women, in particular, seem to have a knack for incredible acts of revenge; perhaps the most famous (and creative) were that of Lady Sarah Graham Moon. She cut one sleeve off from each of the 32 suits belonging to her husband, Sir Peter, before sending 70 bottles of his best claret to his mistress’s neighbours. She completed the revenge by pouring paint over his BMW.

Another story, which is breathtaking for its chutzpah, is that of Hayley Shaw, the wife of British DJ Tim Shaw. She sold his Lotus on E-bay for 50 pence when he joked on air that he would consider leaving her and their two children for a model he was interviewing.

Stories of mean and petty acts of vindictiveness abound in our own family law courts – perhaps not to the extent of demanding a kidney back – but considerably appalling just the same. And while it may be human nature to want to get your own back when you have been betrayed or when someone no longer loves you, if you think about it long and hard, no act of revenge will really change things.

Perhaps the best “revenge” would be to pull yourself together and start a new life – you might even surprise yourself when you find that this will give you greater satisfaction than any malicious action ever could.

[email protected]