A few days ago, MLP leader Alfred Sant declared that the Prime Minister should change the Cabinet “in the national interest”. The suggestion itself is no great shakes. A change in Cabinet has been doing the bar counter, cocktail party and restaurant table rounds from the moment the current lot of ministers took office. It is the fact that Alfred Sant is calling for a reshuffle that is intriguing.
When Lawrence Gonzi stepped into Eddie Fenech Adami’s shoes, the first key decision he had to take was to appoint a new Cabinet. It was not an ordinary, run of the mill appointment. With the eyes of the nation keenly trained on him, the new prime minister was expected to send the first message on the nature and timbre of his premiership. What was it going to be, a new king getting a new court or an old court getting a new king?
On paper, Archbishop’s Gonzi’s nephew appeared to opt for the latter. Well, more or less. Apart from a little tweaking, a couple of predictable promotions and two droplets of new blood, Gonzi decided to work with Fenech Adami’s court. At the time, this decision generated a fair amount of criticism, as it appeared to confirm the suspicion that he was going to be a Fenech Adami Mk II.
Over a year-and-a-half has passed since then. Has that suspicion been confirmed? Let us start with the easy bit. If Lawrence Gonzi has sprung a surprise on everyone it is this: he became his own man almost overnight. Without Eddie Fenech Adami there could never be a Lawrence Gonzi premiership. But the nature of the latter does not depend on the former. “The king is dead, long live the king”. True. But the velocity with which Gonzi shot out from under Fenech Adami’s mantel was staggering.
From this point on, the questions become trickier. Has the fact that Gonzi kept the old court meant that it is operating as if Fenech Adami is running it? Was the change in premiership just a changing of the guards? While generalisations are bound to be erroneous, I do not think so. Many ministers confide that they are obliged to operate differently.
For better or worse, Gonzi’s style, expectations and modus operandi are not his predecessor’s. And, it could not be otherwise. To belabour the obvious, Malta’s challenges in Europe in 2005 are not those of 1994, let alone Mintoff’s and KMB’s in 1987.
Whatever the strategic wisdom of refraining from making deep changes in the Cabinet a year-and-a-half ago, there is one thing it has not achieved. It did not stop the endless rumours, false alarms and speculation about a reshuffle. The key question raised a year-and-a-half ago continues to be raised. Should Gonzi be working with a substantively and visibly different Cabinet from the first one he appointed?
There are two very attractive reasons for answering in the affirmative. And they would both be wrong. The first is to reshuffle for the sake of it, as a way of, quite literally, giving government a facelift. To change the Cabinet for this reason would be to place the interests of good government at the mercy of political stunts and public relations. Government is not a beauty contest.
The second, equally wrong, reason for changing the Cabinet is to promote young backbenchers simply because they are dying to get there or to remove valid ministers simply because they are long-serving. The prime minister’s job is to fill the chairs around the oval Cabinet table with the best men and women available to him.
Clearly, it would be naïve to think that Lawrence Gonzi would only have this limpid and pure consideration weighing on his mind. Internal political and electoral considerations, loyalties and personal histories would weigh on it just as heavily. But if there is a time when it is lonely at the top, it is when a prime minister worth his salt decides on his Cabinet. At that moment, only what is best for the country counts, regardless of the consequences. The dire prospect of seeing a battery of long, sour faces every time he turns his face around in parliament is just part of the burden of office.
And now to the question I started with. Why is Alfred Sant suggesting that there should be a Cabinet reshuffle? How is it that the man who wants to take Lawrence Gonzi’s place is appearing to be lending him a political hand? Is the suggestion a grand, politically disinterested and noble gesture in the interests of the nation? Call me a cynic, but I have serious doubts.
For starters, why does Alfred Sant invoke the national interest on a matter over which he has no say and, for very good reason, should have no say? The prime minister has sole discretion over the composition of his Cabinet for one overriding reason: they are his team. If they falter, his vision will remain on paper or, worse still, turn into a political nightmare. With the ministers pulling their weight, generating ideas and getting things done, Lawrence Gonzi will serve the country well and improve his chances of winning the next election.
It is therefore rather odd and fishy that the prime minister’s political opponent is giving him advice on Cabinet appointments. A football coach does not give counsel to his counterpart on the opposing team, on the players to take off the team and the ones to take off the reserve bench. If Italy were to play against England in the World Cup next spring, it would amount to Ericson telling Lippi not to field Del Piero. It is just not done
Secondly, there are plenty of opportunities on which the opposition leader could have lent his support in the name of the national interest. Indeed, now that EU membership has swept the last big divisive issue off the country’s table, such support should come more naturally and on a daily basis.
Is Alfred Sant acting in this spirit? Hardly. In fact, he does not miss a chance to politicise matters that should never be politicised. His most recent declaration, made in connection with illegal immigration, that the national interest should prevail over human rights, is a case in point. On an issue which is costing us millions, fomenting racism and straining resources, and for which no civilised country has found an easy legal and political solution, is it in the national interest to make such a reckless declaration? Of course not.
My reading of Sant’s call for a Cabinet reshuffle is this. He knows that any reshuffle will give the government a boost, at least in terms of public perception. Sant also knows that if Gonzi is going to do it, he cannot wait much longer. It either happens in the coming month or two or else, in view of the general election, it will not happen at all.
Labour, on the other hand, will gain politically if there is no reshuffle. Sant’s calculus is rather transparent. By piling on pressure on the prime minister to change the Cabinet he is hoping to make Gonzi’s life more difficult,
calling for a reshuffle to try to prevent it. If Gonzi goes ahead nevertheless, Sant will try to get credit for it. It is the oldest trick in the political book, a classic win-win gambit.
[email protected]