The Nationalist Party does not seem to have learnt its lesson from its previous local election defeats, as well as from its Euro Parliamentary election crash.

The best excuse that its secretary general could muster was that most of the planned reforms are underway and that it is now the time to turn one’s attention to individual needs.

We were even regaled with the banner title that “Il-gid li nholoq irid jitwassal b’mod individwali ghand il-poplu” (The wealth created should be taken to the people individually) by the same high ranking party official.

Rather than trying to analyse what went wrong, the PN’s secretary general claimed boastfully that everything was going according to plan, in the sense that the Nationalist government had planned to take up the first three years of its legislature strengthening the economy and the financial situation, while creating more investment.

Rather than reading the writing on the wall, Joe Saliba claimed to be even planning ahead of the next general election; otherwise he would not have spoken the way he did: “Dan jista’ jsir fis-sentejn li gejjin u anke fis-snin ta’ wara l-elezzjoni generali.” (This can be done in the coming two years and after the general election).

All that one can expect from the Nationalist Party are more roads at a central government level, as well as a reform in the tax system which might not have even got off the ground by the time the election is held.

While I do not have every intention to predict an early election, I do not think that Lawrence Gonzi’s statement that the election will be held at the latest date possible is to be taken at face value.

The Nationalists can ill afford another defeat in the next local elections due next year which will be too close for comfort to the general election and which would represent Dr Gonzi’s fifth consecutive defeat at the polls.

The question that people will be asking themselves when the general election is held will be whether they are better off then than they were a couple of years ago.

The Canadian Liberals had congratulated themselves the same way by stating that there was no denying that they were better off than when Jean Chretien first came to power with Paul Martin at his side.

Nonetheless, the electorate had still decided that the time had arrived for a change of government in Canada.

And whether they acknowledge it or not, the PN is facing the same dilemma.

The law of diminishing returns has been eroding their effectiveness since the 2003 general elections.

A change of leadership has failed to reverse the process.

The government of Malta, long of tooth and short of energy, is mired in policy gridlock.

Expect this to become more pronounced in the coming months when according to the PN’s general secretary’s recent hints, long-term thinking is likely to be overwhelmed by short-term calculation.

In the coming months, their appeal to individualism is bound to translate itself into more clientelism, particularly for the chosen few, while holding out in vain the promise of instant gratification for the unwashed

masses.

With the present Cabinet, Dr Gonzi has his team hindering rather than assisting the finding of answers to such challenges as increasing productivity and enhancing competitiveness.

Dr Gonzi should have come clean on the morrow of the latest round of local elections by admitting that fresh thinking is demanded, but the same old elected officials supported by the same old circle of advisers can naturally only come up with the same old solutions.

The Nationalists are likely to be brought down not only by their lacklustre ministers but also by the elite in various sectors of society and the economy.

The core issue Gonzi is failing to address is that the Nationalists have simply become too accustomed to power, while the elites in various sectors have become too accustomed to the Nationalists.

Most of their reforms have proved to be a damp squib as was evident with the recently announced pension reform. Electoral reform died on the vine.

Although there was a change in party officials, the new group of party members merely picked up where the old ones left off, exercising an iron grip over party and government affairs.

Change is essential in a democracy.

A perpetual lease of Castille fuels the sense of entitlement that blurs the line between private gain and public good.

Without a vibrant, continuing competition for power, a democracy runs the risk of degenerating into hegemony on the government side.

At the same time, Labour must constantly keep its feet on the ground.

Both parties need to believe they can win elections – and lose them.

A mere look at the body language of the Nationalists in the House of Representatives makes it clear that right in front of you, you are faced with a group that is splintered, rendering themselves redundant and chronically uncompetitive.

Today the Maltese and Gozitans are clearly ready for change.

If not after four full terms of deteriorating government – then when? When is change acceptable if not now?

Expect the Nationalists to soon come forward with the following stock in trade cliche’ that the argument against change essentially amounts to – better the devil you know than the new or “not so new” devil.

Just claiming that Labour has a hidden agenda does not wash anymore. The same way it did not work during the local elections over the recycling plant at Rabat issue.

Through his actions, Lawrence Gonzi has so far failed to earn the right to a fifth Nationalist term.

Since 1998, Labour has clearly had time to renew itself.

It has ingrained itself with a “can do” mentality which is very evident at a local level and which it can surely manage to translate at a national level too, when duty calls.

In the recent months, Alfred Sant has grown from just being an Opposition Leader into a national leader, ready to take on the responsibility of government.

The Nationalists’ biggest mistake is that although they promise to be everything to everybody in recent months, they have constantly drifted apart from the so called social consensus.

A non-reply

Recently, an Italian undersecretary for Foreign Affairs Giuseppe Drago was received by the Maltese Foreign Minister Frendo in Malta. There was one particular reference to this visit which featured in the Farnesina website which the local press carefully chose to ignore. This was that according to the Italian Foreign Affairs Ministry, “undersecretary Drago took the opportunity to repeat that Italy awaits Malta’s final approval of the framework collaboration in the sectors of marine surveillance, search and rescue and maritime traffic control.”

When I brought this issue up in Parliament, the reply I got from our minister was that the agreement had not yet been concluded! Thank you for small mercies. What I wanted to know was not whether the agreement had been concluded or not. It was very evident from the Italian statement that it had not been concluded. What I wanted to know was what was leading to so much procrastination from the Maltese side?

Leo Brincat is opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and IT

email: [email protected]