The shifting political landscape in Western democracies should be a cause for serious reflection for the PN and its allies in Opposition. The march of radical populism in Europe seems unstoppable, whilst Trump's 'America First' movement commands widespread support, despite the adverse publicity generated by a meandering President.
In Europe we have seen the government of Prime Minister May, once regarded as a safe pair of hands, almost lose the election to left wing radicalism - resulting in what is now a destabilised administration. French President Macron rapidly lost support, post-election. In Italy, a Populist swing brought on the resignation of Prime Minister Renzi, and then there is Brexit, and Kurz in Austria and 'One Nation' in Australia.
Left and right radical populism is gaining momentum. Conversely, in Germany, Merkel's CDU's vote was down significantly and is now struggling to form a government, while the Social Democrat vote declined by 13 per cent. The losses of populists Le Pen in France and Wilders in Holland were initially seen as a tidal turn and hailed with relief by EU leaders. That relief, however, was short-lived, with recent polls now suggesting that it was far from the beginning of the end for populist movements but much more the end of the beginning.
Evidently there is an ongoing swing favouring populist parties, generally with a common political theme based on action against corruption and cronyism, more direct democracy (less interference from a central external authority), the strengthening of the rule of law and increased support of the State by security institutions. Naturally, there are some ideological variations between Left and Right, but with a common drift towards populist radicalism. It seems that growing populism is the product of a widening gap between rich and poor in Western democracies.
A backlash against massive African migration into Europe from South to North America, and a reaction to the rise of so-called progressive governments with an obsessive predilection for social upheavals designed to accommodate the diversity of ethnicities arising from uncontrolled migration by implementing fashionable liberal policies at the expense of traditional native customs and culture.
If we look carefully, we can see that Malta is an exact microcosm of the circumstances fomenting growth in authoritarian populism, except that - in Malta's case - a newly-found, almost demented, fixation with material gain continues to overshadow issues of corruption, cronyism and other open sores that were either ignored at the last election or readily accepted as the price of economic growth. In a political environment brimming with opportunity for a historically conservative party, the PN should be flourishing but, despite the litany of challenges to the government's credibility, this hapless Opposition, Malta's alternative government, is floundering.
The PN has inexorably drifted to the less combative no man's land, the centre ground of politics, whilst Labour pragmatically - albeit ironically - made a sharp turn to the right, focusing less on its traditional, sometimes irrational, support for trade unions and more on support for big business, thus fuelling a booming economy. In short, the two main parties have swapped policies, as a result of which two-thirds of Malta's Parliament is now Labour.
Apart from the brutal reality of numbers in Parliament, another issue for the overall Opposition is fragmentation. Despite the presence of talent and experience, there is seemingly a lack of star performers on the Shadow benches willing to take on a confident government in full stride. Last year, the PM successfully deflected Busuttil's blistering challenges with cynical claims of negativism and it may well be the case that the Opposition is now running a little gun-shy of falling into the same trap.
Opposition members, particularly bumbling Deputy Leader Agius, are falling over each other to agree with the government instead of critically but constructively evaluating the government's every action. Opposition disunity translates to a stronger and more stable government against a destabilised PN, which is the senior member of the Opposition. The only significant threat to this government right now is itself.
This government continues to generate an immense volume of negative publicity of its own making - not only locally but, uncharacteristically for Malta, regularly in media outlets across the EU too. This is a government so convinced of its own unassailable impregnability that it may well, in the fullness of time, facilitate its own demise. A united and effective Opposition may expedite that process for it.
The reasons behind the scrapping of Forsa Nazzjonali and failure to coalesce the PD with the PN, thus forming a much tighter, more effective opposition force in Malta, are not clear and most likely involve personality and ideological clashes, but the prospect of another four years and possibly longer with a rampart unaccountable government, unbridled by a tightly knit and skilled Opposition, is daunting and should give rise to a spirit of constructive compromise on both sides.
Malta is going through an interesting phase in terms of political glass ceilings: we already have a female President outrageously and unconstitutionally partisan and unashamedly regularly displaying her Labour DNA at the cost of what little remains of her Constitutional neutrality ethics. Logically, the next gender target must surely be the Prime Ministership. In the Malta of today, one of the most effective public performers on the Opposition benches may be, perhaps arguably, Marlene Farrugia.
She is clearly more politically savvy than some of the others sitting opposite the government. She homes in on her targets skilfully and fearlessly. She is eloquently clear, concise and to the point and very obviously capable of moving public opinion. In short, Farrugia has already demonstrated the intestinal fortitude required to survive and conquer in the fighting pit of politics. As others had discovered before her, abandoning the Ministry of a Maltese Labour government is not for the faint-hearted.
With the backing of a significant Party machine, many see in her the makings of a future Prime Minister. She has been called 'narcissistic' and 'arrogant' - probably both true, but excellent qualities in the making of a strong and confident leader. "Narcissism is an attribute of many powerful leaders and is synonymous with charisma and grand visions" (with apologies to Rosenthal). PM Muscat would identify with that, and I suspect therein lies the problem for the PN: she is possibly seen as a leadership threat. The PN chose to acquiesce to factional pressures in lieu of common sense when they chose Delia and Agius to lead them. The result is a crumbling support base and a badly misfiring political party, but with the Party's movers and shakers like lemmings in denial, and continuing to see a glass half full when their glass is motherless stone dry empty and the government's cup runneth over, some serious reflection is badly needed.
A Trevisan