I was recently approached by a former Nationalist activist who in the past weeks had asked the PN formally to cancel his membership with the party.

Instead of receiving confirmation that his requested action had been followed up, he received a letter from the general secretary of the party thanking him for his long-term membership with the party and offering him as a “gift” a copy of one of the most unread books on the island: Alfred Sant explained – in-novella ta’ Malta fil-Mediterran, which the Nationalist Party publishing arm PIN had commissioned way back in 2000. The book was written by a certain Edward J. Clemmer who described himself as an American social psychologist, “whom the fates initially threw upon the shores of Malta in 1992”.

His research which I found “tawdry” – to use one of his own expressions – is attributed to a writer in professional journals wherein he claims to have addressed schizophrenic speech, political communication and even the empirical study of aesthetics and the arts.

He also claims to have presented research before the American Psychological Association and the Psychonomic Society of Political Psychology, among others.

His rubbishing of Alfred Sant has adopted a non-fictional narrative in the fictional form of a fable to “provide us with a clarifying analysis of Alfred Sant, current MLP Leader of the opposition, on the basis of his social behaviour and communications”.

It sounds strangely coincidental that the Nationalist Party’s demonisation of the MLP leader has gained momentum since this hotch-potch study has been published.

Whether the author in question has continued to offer his services to the PN is not for me to tell or speculate about. But there was one particular footnote which I consider worth quoting, given the intensity of the Nationalist Party’s hate campaign against the MLP leader.

Clemmer had this to say on page 85 of his “study”:

“If the MLP should breach a revolt against the current leadership because of the national interest, the long-term chances for the MLP to make an effective national contribution in opposition or in government will improve. If not, the MLP will find itself more estranged from the Maltese voting public in the ‘foreseeable’ future.”

I still have to find a governing party in any other country which tries to offer an opposition party advice on how to strengthen itself and reform itself so that it could be in a position to take its place at the helm of the country.

Sometimes we see this scenario being played out in the UK during Question Time on Sky TV but it normally works out the other way round – with the opposition hoping that it would be able to face a stronger and more resolute government rather than vice-versa.

The Nationalist Party tends to rely on these “props” because they provide diversionary tactics and fodder that can keep people’s minds away from the bread and butter issues that are making their life literally intolerable.

During my home visits I visit both Labour and Nationalist voters.

In the majority of cases not only do they not have the time for these hollow pranks but they seem to be more inclined to focus on the micro level rather than the macro level of what is wrong with the Maltese economy and the shaping of Maltese society as a result of government’s misguided policies.

With the Nationalists having been in government for over 20 years what the electorate expects to see are fresh ideas, innovative solutions and a new style of leadership from the PN rather than lengthy and tiresome diatribes about the psychological dynamics of the Opposition Leader.

God knows how the poor dissident from the Nationalist Party must have felt when he received through the mail “his” copy of this novella, rather than confirmation that as requested, he has been struck off the Nationalists’ membership books.

Angry, irritated, and frustrated at a party that he once belonged to, but which has literally forced him to switch off in the light of their extreme, rigid and outrageous campaigns which in no way contribute to the well being of the country or Maltese society in general.

Government must come clean on the “Tripoli” conference

We have had quite a number of conflicting reports in the local media about what really went on in Tripoli during the recent EU-AFRICA meeting.

What were the government’s original proposals?

How were they coordinated with the European Union?

What did the Maltese government try to squeeze into the final document?

In actual fact what did the agreed document state or fail to state?

What was our negotiating position?

Which members of the Libyan leadership did the Maltese ministers meet during the visit?

Surely the least one could expect – as I write this article on Saturday morning – is a statement in the House of Representatives on Monday evening to give us the opportunity to ferret out all the relevant details and information about a subject of topical interest.

I say so because one moment we read that Malta adopts a “wait and see” approach on Tripoli “approval” on Frontex while the next, the same newspaper claimed that the EU and Africa are still miles apart on migration.

At the same time the Italian media came out with the following quote attributable to the Libyan leader:

“L’immigrazione va governata, non fermata. Esiste un diritto naturale per cui la terra, e quindi anche l’Europa, non è di proprietà di nessuno. Esiste quindi un diritto dei popoli a spostarsi.”

Within the same breadth,

l-orizzont reported with front-page prominence on Saturday that with the tightening of controls from Morocco more illegal immigrants are expected to start taking the Libyan route.

Whether this is true or not I do not know. Time will tell.

email: [email protected]