Lost Logic

Maltastar



The prejudice of the English language media and business organisations against the left side of Maltese politics is exposing their illogic and inconsistency.

Their interpretation of the referendum result is an insult to whoever believes in the fair process of democracy in Malta. Not only they felt no reason to raise any objection on the acute democratic deficit with which the referendum was wrapped, but they are now trying to turn logic on its head.

By insisting in supporting the PN`s claim that only the valid votes should be counted to determine the referendum result, they are really exposing their true political colours and that they have become mere political instruments serving the right side of Maltese politics.

`Cassola for them carries more weight than 30,000 voters who exercised their right to support the `no` camp by not voting. ` Maltese democracy is built around the operation of political parties. Political parties in the referendum divided themselves into two distinct camps. The Yes camp embracing the Nationalist Party and Alternattiva Democratika and supported by all right wing organisations including Business Associations and white collar Trade Unions. The No camp consisted almost solely of the MLP and the GWU.

Had Labour given instructions to its followers to vote solely for a straight No, then the argument of counting just the Yes and No votes as a straight fight would indeed apply.` Labour however did not advocate solely a straight No for the referendum. It widened its choice to those who preferred either to abstain or to cancel their vote. It did so purposely to embrace those who like me did not want to vote against EU membership in a vacuum, but wanted to know what the alternative would be.

There was no equivocation on this point. Labour policy was made clear soon after the referendum writ was issued. It was widely publicised.` Nobody complained.` Nobody suggested that what Labour was proposing was illegal.` The challenge was accepted and the expectation was clearly that the YES camp would get an outright majority, thanks to abuse of public funds and foreign interference to brainwash one and all out of our senses.

I personally left no doubt whatsoever in my writings well before the event as to how Labour was going to interpret the result. All those living voters on the register who abstained or cancelled their votes would be counted in the No camp. True this could embrace some who would normally not vote irrespective of Labour`s directive. But once Labour`s policy was made clear well in advance this sector was bound to reduce substantially over its normal level and in any case would be a very small balance to address the excessive loading against Labour when public funds were used to promote IVA together with atrocious foreign interference in our domestic affairs by the EU and its embassy in Malta.

Yet after the event, they all turned wiser. Suddenly those of us who, following the instructions given by Labour in full execution of its democratic rights and obligations, decided to abstain or cancel the vote were not to be counted.

Those who raised hell because Labour applied to the Court for removal of Arnold Cassola from the electoral register having lost the residency credentials` to qualify for voting, suddenly turned very cool in trying to disenfranchise thirty thousand voters from giving a true meaning to our right to form part of the No camp directive. Cassola for them carries more weight than 30000 voters who exercised their right to support the No camp by not voting.

If anyone is being undemocratic it is the Yes camp who keeps attempting to pretend that a minority of 48% can impose its will on a majority of 52%. With their heads in the stars the PN and its allies care nothing anymore about democracy. They think that they have a right to suggest to foreign organisations not to negotiate with a democratically elected Labour government. They think they have a right to impose on a future Labour government, their policy rejected by the majority of Maltese voters in spite of being favoured by a huge imbalance in the application of resources.

They have no right to call themselves democratic anymore. And this is showing is the hate overdose with which they are conducting their election campaign, targeting not the opposing party`s policies but the individual in the most abusive of manners.

Small wonder therefore that when Labour offers to subject its Partnership to a popular referendum contrasting it to membership, these despot dictators and their blind followers start seeing red in the truest sense of the word.

Labour`s proposal to make a fresh referendum during the next legislature as soon as Partnership negotiations are concluded addresses the four democratic weaknesses of the last referendum:

It will offer a real choice between the two contrasting policies of the major political schools and not just constrain voters to vote Yes or No to one of them. It will be held after giving the two arguments opportunity to state their case objectively with a fair allocation of resources without foreign interference and without application of public funds to extract out of the electorate the option preferred by the government. It will be held in a serene environment away from the election campaign to ensure that it is really a national plebiscite and not a partisan tool. It will be held by a government with a constitutional mandate to execute the people`s choice and not by a government at the end of its term in office attempting to impose its will on its successors.

This is true democratic spirit for which Labour, and only Labour, has the right credentials.` It is fully consistent with the promise made in the 1998 election manifesto, with Labour amendment to the government resolution recently debated in parliament before the announcement of the referendum and again consistent with Alfred Sant`s reply to the Prime Minister`s approach by letter last January suggesting a common agreement for a post-election truly national referendum. `They have no right to call themselves democratic anymore. And this is showing in the hate overdose with which they are conducting their election campaign, `

But because this proposal burns the ground from under their feet and woes back IVA Labour sympathisers to the Labour fold by proving to them that Labour is prepared to follow the people`s will for EU membership if this emerges from a truly fair referendum after the Partnership deal is properly negotiated and explained, the PN camp and their media allies attack this sincere and straight forward proposals frontally.

Their reaction proves that they do not really believe in the EU, or in democracy, for that matter.` They just believe in anything that could make them hang on to power.

I maintain that a final decision about Malta`s relationship with the EU needs to be taken serenely and when there is more convergence of informed public opinion on the matter.` It is too big a decision to take with a doubtful decimal point percentage here or there.

The argument that the 16th April signing of the Treaty is the last train to heaven is ludicrous.` It is more like signing `a preliminary agreement to buy a property for its full commercial price in full knowledge that in parliament they are debating a law permitting the passage of a trunk road right on the site of where the house is located.

There will be more than one more opportunity to join the EU if the Maltese electorate should so decide in a fair binding referendum, and it will be on terms far more superior than what the PN negotiated. If we decide to do it we will do it together with confidence in full respect of our constitution and when we are economically upright to make the most of the opportunities.

In the meantime the electorate will chose a Labour government to give first priority to bringing our house in order.

Alfred Mifsud