The year 2008 has arrived, soaked in rain, rudely interfering with our long-planned euro celebrations. The good thing about it was that the Met Office people had given us sufficient advance notice of the inclement weather. We were therefore attuned to the climatic circumstances, when we welcomed in both the New Year and the euro.

The powers-that-be spared no effort to facilitate a smooth changeover to the euro, and although there may be a few ripples in the initial month or two, the passage to the euro zone will present no serious problems, as far as the eye can see.

Not so with the inscrutable New Year.

To start with, there is the inevitable question mark associated with the general election. At the best of times, elections are pregnant with the prospect of possible change. At a time when the Maltese electorate has never been so heavily taxed, and when the government has been surviving for so long on more borrowed money to sustain itself, these are not the best of times.

Running sores

More and more people are asking questions. And they are demanding answers.

It is these answers that may, in due course, unlock the secrets the year 2008 is holding close to its chest.

The electorate knows that, notwithstanding claims that the government “has passed the exams” and made it to euroland, it has been persistently spending well beyond its means, and that the national debt skyrocketed from Lm87 million in l987 to Lm1,260 in 2003.

On taking over from Fenech Adami, Gonzi took no effective steps to heal this running sore. In fact, the national debt continued to soar until it reached the figure of Lm1,423 million last November.

The annual servicing cost of this debt approximates Lm80 million. This is a hidden surcharge on the taxpayer, and on the Maltese economy, until the debt is redeemed. It erodes the people’s spending power and it blunts our competitivity.

The electorate wants to know if, when, and how, it could be relieved of this burden. It is also asking where all the borrowed money has gone.

Questions that breed more questions

These questions breed many other questions. Why has the government never heeded the warnings of the Governor of its own Central Bank who clearly foresaw the day of reckoning? Why has the government shied persistently away from heeding the advice of its trusted supporters, who asked for public, independent investigations into the way money was squandered on the Mater Dei project? Why has the government been so obdurate in resisting appeals for independent investigations on so many other issues where clear evidence of corruption or irresponsible management came to light, like for example at the Transport Authority, the Malta Maritime Authority and the Voice of the Mediterranean?

Others are vociferously questioning the government’s arrogance and want answers as to what led the government to earmark ix-Xghara l-Hamra for a golf course, only to backtrack without explanation. Why it revised the development zone boundaries when there is a glut of empty built-up tenements, why MEPA continues to confound public opinion with startling decisions that has provoked one public outcry after another.

Others still can’t understand why the government refuses so obstinately to respect the clear aspirations of whole communities at Qui-si-Sana, Fort Cambridge, Marsascala, and Hondoq and Qala in Gozo.

Gonzi style of government

This and much more, have brought into question Gonzi’s style of government which has proved to be long on self-praise and far too short on positive results.

In the more recent months, the turn of events have highlighted Gonzi’s main shortcoming, which was best illustrated by the John Dalli episode.

Almost here years ago, John Dalli was divested of ministerial power after an intense demonisation campaign originating from PN quarters. Gonzi accepted Dalli’s resignation because it was deemed improper for a Minister to hold office while under investigation. No charges were ever brought against Dalli. Three years down the line, Gonzi unilaterally decides that Dalli was blameless and, rather than restore him to ministerial status, appoints him as his personal consultant.

This alone exposes the Gonzi “style of government” for what it is – a system where Gonzi and his close strategists hold sway over what has been described as “a staid Cabinet of Ministers who have grown too fond of their seat of power, and a bureaucracy which – as the year 2007 revealed – has rotten elements and was easily wielded to abet the political powers that be”.

This “style” has triggered a separate set of questions within Nationalist Party enclaves. The answers manifested themselves in two different ways: the first took the form of dissenters who separated from the flock assembled at Pieta’. The results of all five electoral consultations held since the 2003 general election provided even more concrete evidence of electoral disenchantment.

In this election year, the Maltese electorate will have to decide whether it will insist on clear answers to the above questions, or whether it will succumb to the entreaties of self-seeking politicians, who will seek to stoke the fires of another “presidential style” campaign, in order to blur their own inadequacies

[email protected]