The Malta Independent on Sunday analysis of last Friday’s debate on Malta’s most popular TV show Xarabank looks into the substance, imagery and presentation of Malta’s main political leaders as they lay bare their abilities in a snap debate which has surely blown the whistle on the electoral campaign.

In this analysis, we try to give a fair assessment of both leaders based on their behaviour during the debate, which in fact, wasn’t an actual electoral debate that gives viewers the opportunity to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the two main leaders in various sectors such as the economy, security, social aspects and politics. This is because the debate was purely dominated by one issue, the one instigated by journalist and The Malta Independent columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia on revelations that she has sound proof that the Panamanian company Egrant belongs to the Prime Minister’s wife, Michelle Muscat.

During the course of this analysis we will give points to each leader from 1 to 5 with one being the lowest and five being the maximum they can attain in each category.

 

Aesthetics and Production Value

The first four points go to anchor Peppi Azzopardi and his Xarabank team who rose to the occasion and provided an impromptu debate which was free of an audience shouting, cheering and booing the speakers. Mr. Azzopardi also refrained from acting like the interrogative journalist he is by nature and stuck to the moderator mode we are so used to seeing in televised debates such as the presidential debate in the US. Mr Azzopardi wasn’t alone in all of this. His professional team made sure that the two leaders got equal time and that the picture quality and framing was of the same standard.

Not so pleasing was the lighting on both leaders as it was clearly flat and a little on the low side when considering the brightness of the background. Extremely annoying were the pop-up adverts constantly overlaid on the leaders’ chest. These are an important source of revenue in TV programmes but one should consider doing away with them in cases like a national debate.

While we laud the fact that there wasn’t an audience to hijack the debate, one must also recognise the fact that at times the programme became boring and lacked entertainment. In future, Mr Azzopardi should consider having an audience which needs to register for each and every seat and having within that audience a variety of people from different walks of life who would have submitted questions they ask the two leaders. This is how it’s done in the US and it works perfectly fine.

 

Image and body language

Muscat: 4 Busuttil: 3

The strict diet regime the Prime Minister has imposed on himself during the past months has paid off during the first televised debate in about two years. Joseph Muscat must have suppressed his cravings and exercised till it hurt to achieve last Friday’s result. He could stand next to the athletic figure of Simon Busuttil with approximately the same frame. This must have been the Prime Minister’s goal when he went on a diet knowing only too well that the round curves he had put on during his first two years in office would not go down well when compared to Busuttil, who is the same age as the Prime Minister. The age gap that existed between Muscat and former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi would not suffice this time round.

During the Xarabank debate, the Prime Minister managed his body language better than the Leader of the Opposition who came across as tense many a times. Joseph Muscat knows how television works more than his counterpart and played for the cameras even when he was listening to Busuttil deliver his blows.

Through his body language the Prime Minister made sure that he seemed to be in control of the debate most of the time, triggering the shots to the point that only when he asked Busuttil to shake hands on an impromptu deal to leave out family from political discourse, Simon tagged along and reciprocated visibly caught off guard.

 

Credibility

Busuttil: 4 Muscat: 2

The Xarabank debate was all about who is the most credible between the two. Both leaders knew they would have a mass audience watching from home so it must have been high on their agenda to score as many points on credibility. Simon Busuttil came out the wiser from the two. He harked on the points that the Prime Minister couldn’t reply to such as why didn’t he call for an inquiry immediately after the news was broken by Daphne Caruana Galizia. Muscat kept hiding from this argument knowing only too well that he should have acted better than he did on Thursday night. The second argument nailed by Busuttil which left the Prime Minister speechless was that concerning the police commissioner and his ability to act and seal the vaults of Pilatus Bank.

The Prime Minister failed to score credibility points particularly when he downplayed the text of a document which had just been released by Caruana Galizia. It was clear that he was trying to cover-up with technicalities that didn’t make sense; even the common citizen could understand that he was unsure of what he was saying.

The only credible points scored by the Prime Minister during the debate were his insistence that in order for the PN and journalist Caruana Galizia to be credible, they needed to provide hard evidence. Busuttil’s argument that evidence is required only in court didn’t go down that well.

 

Strategy

Muscat: 5 Busuttil: 3

Evidently, the Prime Minister came out of the debate as the best strategist between the two. Joseph Muscat walked into the Xarabank studio with a clear vision of how the debate should play out. He wanted to debunk Daphne’s blogs and he wanted to associate Simon Busuttil to Caruana Galizia turning the allegations made by her into claims made by Busuttil. Muscat strategized his delivery in a way to retain control of the discussion. His best moment was when he deliberately brought up the latest revelation by Caruana Galizia instead of letting the Leader of the Opposition to do it before. In doing so he took ownership of the issue and felt comfortable bending it as he pleased. Next, he challenged Busuttil to declare if he stands by the text provided by Caruana Galizia an hour before the debate. Simon came out very weak and evasive on this point. He was made to think on the spot and he came across as indecisive. One would have expected that if the leader of the PN believes all that Caruana Galizia presented, he should have accepted the challenge posed by the Prime Minister and took ownership of the text by claiming that he believed the blogger. Instead, he fudged the issue, leaving the audience waiting for direction. Muscat was quick to pounce on the lack of certainty by Busuttil and immediately amplified the uncertainty on all the issue. This was his finest blow throughout the evening by showing everyone that not even Busuttil believes all that the blogger writes.

Busuttil was good in advertising today’s national protest against corruption and capitalised on those beyond his party who are now supporting his initiative. But other than that, he lacked a proper strategy on how to bring the Prime Minister with his back to the wall.

 

Honesty

Busuttil: 5 Muscat: 2

If there’s one thing that Simon Busuttil managed to convey in large doses is that he is an honest politician. Time and again Busuttil remained constant in his arguments on the matter at hand and the Prime Minister didn’t manage to taint Busuttil’s honest outlook. On the other hand, the Prime Minister failed to convey the simple message that Caruana Galizia’s story is outrageous because he is an honest politician. Instead, he kept dishing out reasons why the story is untrue but never, not once, did he say that it doesn’t fit his character or his style of governing. Of course Muscat knows only too well that when he covered up for Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri who were found to have secret companies in Panama and the BVI he stands in the shadow of their sleaze. Since he never declared that having such outfits is wrong and unacceptable, his honesty standard was lowered to the point that no one questions Caruana Galizia’s allegation on the premise that the Prime Minister is too honest to have rigged such a scam but simply that she has no documents to show for it.

While during the debate Busuttil managed to shake off the criticism that he controls Caruana Galizia or the other way round, Muscat ended admitting that he calls the shots on Glen Bedingfield’s counter-blog when he bragged that he stopped him from attacking Busuttil’s family. One could frame Busuttil for being a naïve politician who believes Caruana Galizia’s words but not that he isn’t honest about how he feels about the matter.

 

Substance

Busuttil: 3 Muscat: 2

Substance in what the two leaders had to say is an important element to measure in a debate like that of Friday. Had the debate been an open one with several topics flying from one side to the other one, it would have identified each leader’s strongest points and his weakest; but when a debate focuses on one issue the substance brought out by each leader is easier to measure. Simon Busuttil backed his arguments with his track record and compared it to that of the Prime Minister during the past four years, so people could feel that even though Busuttil had no documents as evidence in hand he was credible enough to substantiate what Caruana Galizia has been writing on the matter. On the other hand, the Prime Minister kept trying to punch holes into the story when he could have easily substantiated his claim because the person pivotal to these Panamanian companies is his consultant Brian Tonna while the other two beneficiaries of the other two companies are Minister Konrad Mizzi and Chief of Staff Keith Schembri. So when the Prime Minister confused the certificate issued by the Panama government with the UBO of the company, he either was doing it deliberately or because he wasn’t well prepared on the subject.

 

Confidence

Muscat: 4 Busuttil: 3

Ultimately, the debate left people more confused than enlightened. No new evidence came out and the Prime Minister, while managing to fudge the issue as much as he could, didn’t come out clean as he wished to. Busuttil did not emerge as the hero of the day because he didn’t have a clear goal set beforehand of how the debate should play out to his favour. Both retained their ground but Muscat was seen to be more confident and sowed doubt in people’s mind that someone with a serious allegation would not act so cool. On the other hand, Simon Busuttil lacked confidence in the second round. He needed to be more assertive and fight harder to convince people that he is convinced that the Prime Minister is guilty as charged.

 

 

Scoreboard	Muscat	Busuttil
Image/Body lang	4	3
Credibility	2	4
Strategy	5	3
Honesty	2	5
Substance	2	3
Confidence	4	3
Overall	19	21