Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The unpredictable past

portents_akkuzaThe Russians had an interesting expression while under the communist rule. They would say that even the past is unpredictable – because it kept getting rewritten in order to better fit the needs of whoever was in power at some particular moment. I was reminded of this when I read about the PL Deputy Leader’s surreal “Thank God for Simon” speech at the opening of the Labour Party Conference. Particularly interesting was the section about how Mintoff had transformed Malta into a chicken that lays golden eggs and how the nationalist party in government had managed to turn these eggs into leg. Presumably the chicken was not stolen from someone else – seeing how our potential new residents seem to think that Maltese are “chicken thieves” all.

Elsewhere on the net during my latest period of self-imposed exile, we saw that not too endearing man or woman who frequently gets pride of place on the blog that we still like to call the Runs hit the nail on the head a couple of times. It would seem that certain arguments that would not have been seen as valid under a nationalist administration are now worth entertaining. Ah well, the past – as they say – is so unpredictable. The gist of what the Scooter persona said was very much a summary of what was oft repeated on this blog and hence very acceptable to our ears. It had much to do with with why the nationalist party in power lost the plot – particularly with regards to the (un)conscious re-prioritisation of certain values.

Prominent among these values is that of wealth, translated unfortunately by our political aficionados into an idolisation of “money”. In a letter to the press that I had co-authored and co-signed a couple of elections ago we (the co-authors) had pointed out how the Nationalist Party only functions as an efficient vehicle of popular sentiment and representation whenever it manages to put its thumb on a “proper and just cause”. Thus 1987 with all its promises of change from the socialist block, 1992 with the continuation of the change and the beginning of the mission of European Membership … all the way to 2004 and actual membership. Having dragged an overall skeptical nation into the EU, the PN failed to regalvanise its sense of purpose with new blood. The downfall from then on was all too easy to predict. No purpose, no party.

A pragmatic and cycnical Labour has stuck to one purpose – transparently clear through all the marketing stunts – hanging on to power. Labour is the perfect machine of the PLPN era. It sells an idea of representative majoritarian democracy (with hugely familiar consonances with Gaddhafi’s Green Book of Instructions for Popular Democracy) while actually dealing solely in power-trading politics. The ultimate unit is not values but greed in a wider sense. You get what you want if you are willing to play along with the tune. Lobbies are transformed into piglets running around the teat of a mother pig that is itself busy swilling at the trough. Rights are not really so much a matter of discussion as much as a form of barter in the power game. Which explains the roughshod manner in which even those rights that could be described as universally desirable are suddenly introduced.

With the PN currently in “renewal” mode and the PL preparing for its first reshuffle, the present is not half as clear as it could be. The first headlines to trickle out of the PN reform conference seemed to me to be heavily reliant on cosmetics and the cliché point winners (more women, more participation). I may be missing something but I did not really see much that was related to the PN soul-searching for that new basic sense of purpose that builds upon past ones (notably upon EU membership). Ironically much of the way that the Labour government played the EU side with regards to the citizenship issue was not too different from how the PN itself had “used” EU structures for other sensitive issues – and I have hunting particularly in mind.

The PN would do well to examine the possibility of becoming stronger on Europe. More Europeanist. Yes, it is possible. For until this moment what with all the “good” it may have done by forming the bulk of the movement for EU membership, the heritage that the PN left behind points to anything but a Europeanist wave. Our knights in shining armour (as they portray themselves) might have galloped all the way to the door of Europe but their horses are still tied outside. Europeanism might be a solution that the PN could explore and embrace. It will not be easy because for too long has the PN kidded itself that it carries a 100% Europeanist movement behind it. It does not. A battle would still have to take place for such Europeanism to assert itself. And there is no guarantee that such a philosophy and politics could be a “winner” on the Maltese stage.

A murky past, an even murkier future. Things are definitely going to get interesting.

Facebook Comments Box