The Malta Independent’s editorial on Sunday, 15 April was about the possibility of an early snap election in July. This opinion started to be aired by various political commentators and became a political reality after the recent events in Maltese politic

About a year ago, I wrote in this paper about the options our prime minister, Joseph Muscat, had to call an early election. At the time, I stated that there was a possibility that he would call an election at the least expected moment. The objective was to catch the Opposition off guard.

Usually, this government is extremely pre-emptive where the media is concerned. This time round, it seems, the media has caught the government unprepared. The issue of an early election became pertinent following a number of tactical mistakes made by the government and the new revelations about the Panama Papers.

It is customary that preparations for an election are kept under wraps. The issue here was not the fact that someone had mentioned a date, but as rightly analysed by the editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday, the behaviour of a number of government ministers is pointing in this direction.

However, the fact that government ministers, including those very close to Muscat, are now canvassing assiduously goes to show that something is in the air. The haste seems to have started after the Opposition was caught on the wrong footing after the db allegations. Joseph Muscat must have argued that it was the time to go for elections before his government was caught in another major scandal. These fears have now become a fact.

Irrespective of those who thought that an election would not be called during Malta’s presidency, Muscat has different ideas. Muscat wants to experiment. If he is reelected, he will be showing other European leaders and parties how to use the EU presidency for electoral purposes.

From a political point of view, this is quite an interesting electoral hypothesis. European governments that have held the presidency of the European Union habitually lose the subsequent national election. Yet, none of these governments have ever called an election at the end of their presidency or during the presidency itself. In our case, this means that the Maltese government will be dissolving parliament in May or June or after the end of the presidency, that is July.

Calling an election at this point in time has other advantages for the Prime Minister. The first is that the negative effects of the presidency will not become visible, as usually occurs, when an election is called months after the end of the presidency. Secondly, the government could use the ceremonies, normally associated with the end of a presidency as part of its electoral stunts.

The Opposition has made a good political move. The Egrant story was being kept for election time. With the prospects of an election on the offing, this story was divulged to the media. After the Egrant scandal, an early election ceased to be the case of electoral expediency. It has now become a must. Some are even speculating that parliament will be dissolved tomorrow, 2 May. In simple words, tomorrow parliament meets after the Easter recess and the Prime Minister will use today’s 1 May manifestation as a show of force. This could culminate in the dissolution of parliament tomorrow.

Now, the prospect of an early election has become an exercise in damage limitation. By calling an early election, Muscat would be putting to an end the damage that this story is making to his figure of a statesman. Before the scandal erupted, such unprecedented action during the last week of the presidency would not have tainted his political figure in the international field. Nor would this have any negative effect on the presidency. Now, with the story of Egrant, he needs to call an election to stop the damage to his persona and his chances of re-election that such story would cause to any political figure.

Whether the election will be called on tomorrow or at any other date, there is only one thing that is certain. Muscat will call for a snap election, which means a short electoral campaign. Constitutionally, the country needs at least five weeks of electoral campaign.

Should the election period be a long one, cases of corruption, as was the case of the oil scandal in 2013 (still unresolved), will hit the electorate with greater force. This is why the information about Egrant has surfaced now. The electorate will have more time to reflect on the cases with disastrous consequences for the government. Should the election time be short, as in 2008, scandals similar to the Mistra permit case will not have the time to mature, with the result that any collateral damage that such scandals inflict on the government will be contained.

Therefore, by going for a snap election, and one as early as possible, the Prime Minister would be decreasing the time for the Opposition to gather all the material on other potential scandals. Moreover, the Opposition will need to decide which scandal to use in its political campaign. If it has more than one scandal, it cannot publish them all at once. From a media point of view, having too many negative anecdotes is tantamount to a campaign disaster. People will get confused. The Opposition seems to have taken all this into consideration as it is employing a strategy that focuses only on harping about one or two scandals. With Panamagate, the Opposition has realized the political danger of a short campaign and has started thrashing this issue in earnest.

I don’t think that the government has yet started to call the shots. At this point, it is more interested in discrediting the evidence that is being brought about the Egrant story. Perhaps, the government is now in a quandary whether to call the election tomorrow or leave it to another day. In other words, Labour first wants to discredit the evidence that is being produced about Egrant before starting a deluge against the Opposition.

The Prime Minister indicated during Xarabank that he has ammunition and is keeping it for a later date. I am sure that the Opposition’s deputy leaders, in particular, Beppe Fenech Adami, will be the focus of government’s electoral campaign and the Opposition will end up shooting from the hip.

Muscat’s main concern are the Labourites. After a fouryear period where the government was more interested in getting the support of former Nationalists, Muscat now wants to focus on the Labourites, many of whom are deeply hurt. Castille has instructed its ministers to give special attention to their cases. Measures are already in hand and this is why, in this election, Labour will be fielding a number of candidates who are associated with diehard Labour families.

The fact that a number of government employees on definite contract with the government have been put on an indefinite contract is a clear indication that this government is seeking the sympathy of its traditional Labour voters. The Civil Service Collective Agreement has also been drawn up. Even if it follows past collective agreements, where the increase in salary was pecked to 2.5% of deflation, this has created a sense of good feeling.

Perhaps, it is this headache that will prompt Muscat to call an early election, particularly should diehard support dwindle. The Egrant scandal is having a negative effect on a section of the traditional Labour supporters rather than on the so-called switchers. It will be in the PM’s interest then to stop any haemorrhage of votes as quickly as possible by calling a snap election.

 

Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History