They say that a day is a long time in politics. How about twenty two years? From the very year I was born till this very day I have known nothing but a nationalist government. For 18 years I didn't bother with politics at all and had absolutely no opinion, therefore the short stint of a Labour government from '96 - '98 was of absolutely no value to me. Ignorance was bliss. Indeed the first time I had voted was in the 2006 local council elections and I developed a bitter-sweet addiction to the pettiness of the Maltese political system since then. The more addicted I became, the more I began to despise it.

On the one hand you have the ever-growing arrogance of the nationalists who, having been victorious for so long, start to believe that the throne of power is theirs for the keeping ad aeternum. The more they win the dirtier they become and should anyone high up dare threaten that power in any way, he or she will quickly find life hell. Harry Vassallo summed up such tactics in superb form last Sunday on illum. Anyone who dared protest by not voting was swiftly given assurances and promised paradise in secret meetings but so tired has government become that this time it did not work so well. And instead of the politics that this country needs we end up with the politics of staying in power at all costs. The massive onslaught of a Labour victory in MEP elections will not change this. Instead it will just prompt the PN to make the necessary changes to its machinery by ousting all the threats in its power circle and beyond. I would not be surprised if the outcome of the recent election turns out to be a blessing in disguise for PN.

Then you've got the alternatives which for me are the PL and AD. Let me start with the PL which is the second major player in Maltese politics. I fancy myself a socialist and did indeed vote PL in the 2008 general election. I wanted to play a role in changing the political climate but above all I wanted (and still do) a political party that takes decisions rooted in the ideology of the center-left. But twenty-two years in opposition has damaged Labour big time as well. Despite Muscat's plea for Labour to start 'dreaming' once more (meta l-Partit holom, rebah), Labour seems to be abandoning certain basic principles (which for me are non-negotiable) because on the chess-board of Maltese politics ideas and principles would not and cannot kill the King. The idea may be to play dirty now, that is to fight fire with fire, and once you're at the top you can then take the decisions based on your ideals. Some (or many) may argue that this is the only way to change the face of Maltese politics: pragmatism first, ideology after.

They tell me that as I grow older the more I will realise that this is the only way. Well I can be on my death bed and I would still view it as a tragedy but let us for argument's sake assume that it is the only way. The most ideal scenario is that we would have 4 years of a Labour Party making statements based on polls and the statistics of popular opinion. During this time Muscat does not act as a leader per se but more as the face of the party, i.e. we would have a MuscatPL. Secret meetings and promises of paradise are abundant especially in those five weeks before the 2013 election. Once it is in government we witness the PL we all wished to see from the very beginning of Muscat's leadership. Muscat sheds the populism and takes the decisions that need to be taken. We accept that the means justified the end and rejoice that we finally got that which we wished for: a Malta making progress. After a while we realise that a group of people are openly attacking Muscat for making u-turns and deceiving them in the run up to the general election and we mock them, we vilify them and the more we do so the angrier they get. The angrier they get the more we try to make their life hell. Three, four years down the line we begin to accept that at least some of these people had a point.

Do you see where I am getting at?

Finally, twenty(-two) years of poor results has put a great big frown on AD's otherwise smiling sun. My fear is that the final blow has been dealt and AD bows out of the scene. It's been a tough time but hey, at least they tried. Straight from the horse's mouth, Briguglio said: 'disband or be more radical...even if we don't win'. This seems to suggest that AD has given up hope on ever winning at all. Perhaps they have accepted that they are the victim of a hopeless political system and I'm sure they're pissed off when in places like France and Germany the greens became the second strongest political force in the respective countries.

Twenty two years of the same has really messed things up for Malta.

As Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi boasts Malta's new pilot project, a "tailor-made programme to help fight illegal immigration" from Brussels, his Christian-Democrat government is throwing immigrants in the street. As a result these people, many of them single mothers, have no roof over their heads and hardly any food to eat. I never would have thought that the soft-spoken CMB would have the heart to take such horrific and inhumane action. I demand his immediate resignation but unfortunately in Malta no such thing ever happens. Politicians have lost all sense of shame and humanity.

And what about Muscat who should stand for social justice and equality? Is this going to be yet another case where votes come before human dignity? Does the so-called coalition of progressives and moderates demand his silence on this issue?

AD is, unfortunately, too damaged at the moment to speak out in public.

The Church, save one very rare outcry from arch-conservative Bishop Grech, is too busy fighting things like abortion and IVF than to bother with immigrants because the rights of cells come before the rights of human beings from Africa.

Such action by government and silence from the mainstream in civil society is going to create even more xenophobia and racism. Maltese people aren't so used to seeing people living in the streets. Not so long ago one person was even jailed for begging. This might prove to be another major culture shock which ignorant Malta might not handle so well. And I suspect that as people become weary they would turn to politicians and we would have another "Ghoxrin Punt" coming from Parliament because people come first so long as they are Maltese and disgruntled. The authorities are also openly inviting a rise in crime because absolute poverty tends to bring about crime.

But more importantly no man or woman should ever be subjected to a life on the streets. What sad times we live in.

You would have thought that Gordon Brown's Labour Party is in such dire straits that it is far beyond rescue. You would have also thought that the only credible and principled MPs are those that stepped down from senior positions and/or resigned and demanded that Brown does likewise. Yet Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, has some interesting proposals amongst which is the so-called 'progressive promise' to citizens in Britain. Theoretically it is an idea to reform democracy in Britain yet it is also one desperate but interesting attempt at fashioning Labour into a credible political force now that Britain is a year shy from general elections.

At the heart of the 'progressive promise' is the vision for the future of Britain and the politicians' understanding of the hopes people have for the future. She claims that the global economic recession "will precipitate a new economic order which we must shape so it will usher in a new social order which must be based on fairness and equality." The deputy leader demands that there must exist a universal equality the objective of which is to be inclusive of all in that no person should be shunned, bullied or undervalued because of his or her race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.

"Renewing democracy is not just solving a problem or a means to a progressive end but it is an end in itself that there should be a sharing of power as well as a sharing of wealth as part of our progressive promise." To this end Labour is pushing for a reform of the House of Lords, a written constitution a new voting system for Westminster and tackling the "monstrous inequality" of 3 million voters not on the electoral register.

Harman also spoke about values and principles which the Labour government brought forward such as the national minimum wage and the right of women to become MPs. She admits that such values were populist but did not "shrink away from controversy". It is in this spirit that Britain must not shrink from controversy over the EU debate; Britain needs a close relationship with the EU as it is the only way forward for the economy, the environment and security. Neither must Britain shrink away from action needed to sustain the environment. Finally Britain must not avoid debate about strengthening democracy and enhancing equality. The Equality Bill which was drafted last April will place a legal duty on all public authorities to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Equally important is the introduction family friendly measures such as the creation of more child and youth centres in all neighbourhoods so that parents will feel safer about their children and this will also give them a chance to work.

The same Equality Bill will also take to task the fascist BNP which saw its popularity soar in the MEP elections. The BNP's membership clause states that it represents a collective of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities and the European race resident Britian. Basically it is a party for indiginous caucasians only. The Equality Bill would make it illegal for political parties to operate a clause that rejects black persons and asians because according to Harman "we cannot have political apartheid in Britain."

Finally Harman harshly criticises Tory leader David Cameron. She argues that a Tory government in 2010 would be devastating for Britain. Cameron's conservative party has for starters said no to the Equality Bill which she holds so dear. Secondly Cameron now openly supports a 10% reduction in public spending as well as a marked reduction in inheritance tax much to the pride and joy of the wealthy folk. Her final message is that if there is anyone out there who believes that Cameron will take the Conservatives to the center, favors equality and public spending, is fair on taxes and unemployment he or she better think again.

After 20 years of ups and downs, AD is once again at the cross-roads. Michael Briguglio has made his declaration quite clearly: "disband or be more radical". I truly hope that AD opts for the latter option because it would be a great loss for Maltese politics if the green party decides to call it a day. Admittedly I have never (in 2 elections) given AD my first preference but I did give Cassola a relatively low number on June 6. Nonetheless I believe that AD should stay.

Their departure from the scene would not be without consequences.

• First of all the other small parties are AN and Lowell's Imperium which both fall on the right and extreme right of the political spectrum. Voters who can't be bothered with the duopoly might be more compelled to vote for the above-mentioned. Of course, AD cannot exist simply to filter to the far right vote yet this is a possible consequence of what might happen should it wither away.
  
• Secondly AD has a small but dedicated voter base who have never felt at home with PN and PL. These would be left without any political representation.
• Thirdly AD is the only progressive alternative to the PL which on each passing day is proving to be more populist and centrist than progressive except on those very rare occasions when Muscat speaks as a social-democrat should. I am 99.99% certain that a number of lefties have switched to AD in these MEP elections after PL's complete mess on immigration. I have not voted AD in these elections but I just might do that in the future.
• AD's departure would strengthen the PNPL duopoly more than ever.
  

Labour does well to expose the ruling party's limitless deceit in the run up to the last general elections. All the bare-faced lies and broken promises should not escape criticism because it would legitimate their use and democracy itself would be at stake. We are already in a situation where transparency and accountability have no value. On the other hand Labour mustn't follow suit by attempting to be everything for everybody to the detriment of fundamental principles and values that should characterize social democracy. This unprincipled populism is a vote grabbing monster.

Labour does well to criticise the ruling party on its gross inefficiencies in incentivising the economy especially in times of crisis. The ruling party has inexplicably failed to control wasteful spending since only a small portion of investment went into safeguarding jobs that were in a precarious state. On the other hand Labour must declare its position clearly on economic policy. Social democracy demands a solid and efficient welfare state that is there to safeguard first and foremost the weak in society and the welfare state can only be sustained by taxation and well-managed public spending. Labour's defence of the deficit in times of crisis is welcomed but a purposefully vague economic policy is a vote grabbing monster.

Labour does well to criticise the ruling party on its (un)environmental credentials. The friends of friends mentality who can construct concrete ogres wherever and whenever they please has to stop. Months ago Labour very gladly made environenmental preservation and sustainable development one of their basic core aims. On the other hand Labour mustn't follow in the footsteps of the ruling party's flirtations with construction magnates who don't give a s**t about the environment and neither should it endorse the traditional massacre of birds and fish facing imminent extinction. Whilst Labour has shown very positive signs of change on its environmental policy by being proactive it should not at the same time give in to those who do not have the conservation of species, sustainable development and alternative energy at heart for in doing so it would be pursuing a vote grabbing monster.

Labour does well to criticise and expose the ruling party's miserable track record on civil rights both at the national and EU level. Certain prominent individuals and stratgists at the heart of the Nationalist Party have in years gone-by fashioned the traditionally conservative PN to be more socially liberal than the PL. But today we have a confirmation on how liberal the PN actually is and the answer, according to Vice PM Tonio Borg, is in the negative. On the other hand Labour must be more forceful and pursue issues such as divorce, cohabitation and gay rights with conviction and not as vote grabbing monsters.

Labour has a lot of potential and can very well be a positive alternative government to the current status-quo. But this potential will surely falter if Labour tries to be everything for everybody. Unprincipled populism, the politics of fear, unclear economic policy, the flirtations with certain moguls and lobbies and a not so forceful position on civil rights can lead Labour to victory but this at the cost of everything it should stand for and it would ultimately prolong the status-quo instead of undoing it.

I must say that I certainly did not expect Labour to enjoy such a resounding victory in these MEP elections. Despite what the polls were showing I succumbed to the belief that PN stratagists had it in them to win their disgruntled flock back as they normally do in the weeks prior to an election. But it seems that they pissed off way too many people and if GonziPN truly thinks that this result does not reflect a massive loss of confidence in his government and that it's back to business as normal than I suspect that there won't be any Gonzi in GonziPN.

As much as I wish it wasn't the case one must admit that in MEP elections a great majority of people do not give a flipping hoot about pan-European issues. Basing the majority of its campaign on domestic issues gave Labour the upper hand and the ability to be constantly on the offensive whilst setting the political agenda. Without a doubt, Joseph Muscat's down-to-earth charismatic approach has drawn him many pale-blue/green votes. Moreover, his natural aptitude for quasi-militant rhetoric secured both the hardcore and the moderate Labour vote and this proved to be a great recipe for success. It is a feather in Joseph's cap to be the leader of the only party in Europe to have won an absolute majority in these elections (although in other countries there is no such thing as two-party dominance, amongst other factors such as voter apathy).

Ironically it is for the very same reasons that brought to an end my very short spell in the Labour Party that made it such a strong force. If Labour had adopted a humane approach to immigration as I had sorely wished (and still do) the PN would surely have exploited it, played the fear card (such as 'Labour voted in favour of bringing terroists in Malta' Casa-style) and would have probably won given that illegal immigration was the number 1 issue all throughout. It is in this sense that the Labour Party took a turn to the right and garnered the patriotic (a.k.a. racist) vote. By some stretch of the imagination one can compare this to Tony Blair's strategy way back in '97 when he shrewdly hijacked typical conservative issues such as 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. As Muscat would probably put it: 'Il-Maltin toleranti imma kontra l-illegalita'.

But nothing could be further from the truth for racism has claimed its first victim in the absolute physical sense. I am referring to Suleiman Abubaker who was murdered by racist thugs in Paceville just because he happened to be African and drunk. I fear that this mass-hysteria and 'rampant racism', as Moviment Graffiti appropriately termed it, will only claim more. It would be a grave mistake to just discard this grave situation as a one-off. I heard on One News that the aggressor is now being charged with involuntary homicide. I hope that the report was bungled. Unless there was more to it than meets the eye, this man truly deserves nothing less than life imprisonment. Or does our legal system looks favourably upon those who kill in the "national interest"?

The 8th of June has come and exams are finally over. On the whole I believe that I've fared well, although the last exam (that is today's exam) could have gone much better. But enough about that. The MEP elections have come and gone and we can breathe a sigh of relief but effectively the story has only just begun. The first point that comes to my mind is that despite the showing in Malta, in Europe the 'new dawn' was more of an 'ugly dawn'.

The Party of European Socialists (PES) have failed and failed miserably when they should at least have given the European People's Party (EPP) a run for their money. From the very word 'go', polls did predict a status-quo, that is the EPP retaining their 268 seats and the PES their 200 seats. But the truth is that whilst the EPP did indeed retain their seats, the PES lost almost 40, some to the greens, some to the far right and to the independents. The ideological battle against neo-liberal conservative forces did not do its magic because in the end the ordinary working citizen is more concerned with the precariaty of the job market in his own nation state than with the battle of ideas on a trans-national front. And that is where the right and far right can work wonders by exploiting such sentiments to their advantage especially when there are fear-factors involved...such as the nemesis 'foreign worker' (whether he is an EU-national or a third-country national makes no difference) who is coming to steal their hard-earned job and their livelyhood.

Figures (according to Euronews.com) show that the progressive-left, that is the European United Left(GUE–NGL), PES and European Greens (Greens-EFA) put together, have gathered 248 seats in total which on its own is already less than the 267 of the EPP-ED. Assuming that the entire Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDR) will vote together with the progressive left on certain issues then the figure would rise to 328 (approx). This is where some hope exists for the progressive agenda in the European Parliament. The EPP-ED, Eurosceptics, European Far-Right and Independents make up the remaining 408 seats.

A principal loser in this election was certainly the PES but the biggest winner, in my opinion, were the far-right albeit they only gained 8 seats from 2004. Not to sound pessimistic, but although the advantage is apparently small, it indicates a rise in the politics of fear based on skin-colour and an inbred hatred of different cultures. On the other hand, I am glad that the Greens have shown their mettle, an indication that on an ideological level, the 'Green New Deal' was more welcome and more understood than the 'New Social Europe'. It is certainly an indication that climate change is becoming more predominant on the political agenda.

In the last paragraph I purposely said that a principal loser was the PES, but they were not the biggest losers. In my opinion the biggest losers were citizens themselves who, although rightfully discontent with European institutions and/or their national governments, chose to keep moaning and whining instead of exercising their once-in-every-5-years right to do something about it. Thanks to us (I say 'us' with modesty for I did vote), Barroso can keep on with business as usual.

In the end...an ugly dawn for the European Union.

P.S. I will dedicate my next post on the election in Malta