Andrew Sciberras

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