Once every five years, the daily slog of partisan Maltese tribal politics reaches a crescendo in a general election campaign. What has so marked this long-winded campaign – far too long for one’s own, or the country’s, good – has been the way, like politicians the world over, ours tend to be good opportunists (especially at mud-slinging), but poor strategists. For the Nationalist government the last 15 months’ politics have centred on trying to survive in the face of a disunited party, while the Opposition Labour Party has manoeuvred to bring it down.
There comes a point, though, when the electorate has to make a judgment: which party is best placed to offer a strategy for the country to see it successfully through the next five years? The current polls continue to show a commanding lead for the Opposition Labour Party. But polls in Malta are notoriously unreliable and large leads have a habit of tightening as Election Day approaches.
At the core of both parties’ manifestos has been a stubborn unwillingness to face up to the difficult economic and social decisions that lie ahead for Malta. Instead, both parties have competed to make promises they are unlikely to be able to fulfil. The reality – which has not been touched upon by either party – is that, as two leading international credit agencies and the European Commission have warned, Malta is facing difficult economic times (made worse now by Italy’s hung elections) unless timely actions to correct current policies are taken. Malta’s burgeoning public debt risks bringing down the economy unless the government acts to control it.
Warnings have been sounded about Malta’s ageing population and the unaffordability of its pension and welfare schemes, free hospital care, free education and generous university stipends. Yet, both parties have competed throughout this campaign to add further costs to government expenditure. They are guilty of over-promising and failing to confront the challenges ahead with honesty.
In the face of such irresponsible policies, which is the least bad choice of party to lead this country in the next five years?
The Nationalist Party makes a perfectly respectable case for a safe pair of hands. Better to place one’s future in a party with proven experience and leadership. One that, over an almost unbroken period of 25 years, has made Malta what it is today – a thriving, stable country, solidly anchored in the European Union whose citizens have benefited from high employment, economic growth and a relatively good standard of living.
But an objective observer would have to point out that this is not the whole picture. There is also a dark side to the government. The Nationalist Party has become arrogant after so long in power. It is seen to be clinging to it. Worse, it has made a number of high-handed decisions that have eroded the people’s trust in it. The introduction of significantly higher utility rates was grossly mishandled. The secretive introduction of higher pay for ministers at a time when the majority of the working population was struggling to balance household budgets simply added to the perception of an uncaring government. The inept conduct of the divorce referendum and its aftermath reinforced the image of a government that only paid lip-service to the will of the people. The feeling that the rich in our society have been getting richer and the poor poorer has exacerbated divisions.
Overridingly however, thanks to an investigative scoop by MaltaToday, the election campaign has thrown up a massive corruption scandal that has raised questions about the government’s competence, accountability and the integrity of many, both in and outside government, who have been very close to it over the last decade. There can be no escaping that the so-called oil-gate scandal has happened on this government’s watch. The ripple effects touch not only those who may have criminally benefited from it, but also resurrect concerns about the handling and administration of every aspect of energy supply in Malta over the last 15 years.
The BWSC contract (which the Auditor General was unable, on the balance of evidence, to call flawed), the decision to go for heavy duty oil, not gas, the unconscionable inefficiency and high public debt of Enemalta, and the arrest of top members of Malta’s business establishment on charges of money-laundering and kickbacks for oil purchases add up to a picture of sleaze and misadministration in a vital sector of Malta’s economy which can only be laid at this government’s door. This is not to say that individual ministers benefited, but that individual ministers failed in their imperative duty to safeguard the country’s interests in a vital area of governance.
But there are wider arguments in favour of a political change over and above those of the institutional corruption, cronyism, patronage and money-laundering that oil-gate appears to have exposed. It is unhealthy, in a democracy whose electorate is so evenly divided, for one party to keep hold of the levers of government for so long. It is bad enough that, because of Malta’s flawed electoral system, the two parties exercise a duopoly. Democracies need to renew themselves periodically, or else almost half the electorate is permanently disenfranchised.
There is also a positive argument for the Nationalist Party to spend a period in Opposition. Despite the rhetoric of the last few weeks, the party has become stale and tired. Every effort by Simon Busuttil to stamp a new look on it cannot disguise its jadedness. Nationalist supporters may think they have a divine entitlement to govern forever, but this is mistaken. A period in Opposition will be healthy. It will give the party time to re-vitalise itself, inject fresh thinking into its policies, heal its divisions and deploy some new faces to its front bench.
The Labour Party now should have its place in the sun. Let us be clear. A Labour government will not be perfect. It will make mistakes. It will be faced on arrival by all the issues it has failed to address in its road map and the messy business of daily Maltese politics. But its front bench is no worse, and in some respects is better, than those now in government.
Joseph Muscat has run a skilful campaign. The allegations of sleaze against him and his Deputy do not stand up (except with PN apologists). They pale into insignificance by comparison with oil-gate and the energy scandal. His policies are indistinguishable in their thrust and effect from those of the Nationalist Party, and in many cases are more imaginative. They are certainly more inclusive of Maltese society as a whole.
Malta needs a new approach to politics and an end to the bitter tribalism that continues to tear this country apart. It stands a better chance of getting this from the Labour Party. If Joseph Muscat fails to deliver on his promise of change, free from the pull of special interests and politics as usual, then his administration will last for only one Parliament. But on the basis of what we’ve seen, it is right that he is given the chance to show what he can do.