When Privacy Hurts

11^th January 2008

The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom

 A great sense of national decency is how my great friend Charles Flores, writing in last Sunday’s sister paper, defined the moderation showed by the local media in general, with regard to the major surgery that the Opposition Leader had to undergo just after Christmas.

I don’t know if he is still of the same opinion, following the scathing criticism in the same Sunday edition regarding the secrecy about details of the Opposition Leader’s illness and its treatment.

While a dose of moderation is always called for in such matters concerning the health of an individual, now that we have been assured that the surgical intervention was successful and that Dr Sant is recovering well and will be able to lead Labour’s bid for re-election at the next general election, which could be a mere fistful of weeks away, even I am starting to feel that the sense of national decency shown towards Dr Sant has not been reciprocated with equivalent decency by Labour’s media in keeping the electorate informed as it should be under the circumstances.

Dr Sant’s health is not simply a private matter. He is the Opposition Leader, and has been incessantly pitching for re-anointment as leader of this nation for the next legislature as the current one will draw to a close next May. In making its proper choice, the electorate has a right to know the full details of Dr Sant’s state of health. They want to know, not only that Dr Sant will be able to lead Labour’s pitch for the next election, but particularly whether if elected his health will permit him the necessary energy, stamina and clear thinking needed to lead this country forward.

In my past writings I have been severely critical of Dr Eddie Fenech Adami’s decision to retire early in this legislature, which he was elected to lead without having made clear his intention to resign soon after being elected. With consistency I maintain that it is Labour’s and Dr Sant’s responsibility to inform the electorate about the details of his illness and his state of recovery therefrom together with certified medical opinion on the most likely evolution of his state of health for the next five years.

Dr Sant owes this transparency, not only to the electorate in general, but to the Labour Party and its supporters in particular. There can be no doubt that to get elected one of the major parties has to attract votes beyond its hard core of supporters that on their own cannot guarantee a majority. Floating voters will decide which party will lead us for the next five years. Floating voters will want to know whom they are voting for. They are unlikely to be attracted to vote Labour if they perceive a risk of having a leadership change soon after the elections. Objective people generally dislike giving open cheques and avoid making leaps in he dark

They might be happy to have Alfred Sant as their next Prime Minister, but may not take the risk, if lack of transparency about his illness and state of health leads to doubt about whether they will, in fact, end up having Charles or Michael or George or Joe or Evarist or Emanuel as their next Prime Minister.

A floating voter once told me that the more he hears political arguments the more confused he gets about whom he should vote for. So, in the end he had a picture of both party leaders and by looking them in the eyes he would let his conscience judge in whose hands he could trust his family’s future. If such floating voters, when looking at Dr Sant’s picture perceive that he will not be there to execute their mandate, the swing in favour of Labour in the floating sector swath could well stall when it most matters.

My motivation in writing this piece is that of seeing Labour spend a fair amount of its time in government, a time as long as possible and as is consistent with clear democratic credentials.

In the interest of Labour Dr Sant should not prejudice its chances of re-election. If, as I sincerely hope and pray, his health will recover to permit him not only to lead an election campaign, but to lead this country as its next Prime Minister with all the responsibility that the post demands, then Labour should say so in the most eloquent terms, and provide medical opinions to make such claim as credible as possible.

If there is any reasonable doubt about this then he should take the honourable step and let Labour choose a new leader sooner, rather than later, in order to provide the electorate with a clear choice. No one person is bigger than the organisation he or she represents.