If you study Joseph Muscat’s political style you will find a truly interesting characteristic.

Shrouded in a sort of humility, Dr Muscat often repeats that he (and/or the extension of his persona, the government) is not perfect. This earns him not only a respite of credibility and some political mileage but also, more importantly, the possibility to buy time. In the game of democracy, each government has a constitutionally-limited lifespan, so buying time to postpone the payment of political penalties is absolutely of the essence. Every seasoned politician knows that if he or she can survive a crisis for more than a week or two, then the chances are that they need not do anything about it or even quit the game so soon.

So Dr Muscat keeps playing, over and over again, this “we are not perfect” tune. Now he has taken it to the next level. Not only is he “not perfect”, there is really no alternative to him.

This is quite a telling manoeuvre. It is no longer the case that Dr Muscat is not perfect, but we have to lump it because there is no alternative. This extraordinary assessment was evident in the accusation levelled at the Nationalists that they are simply “administrators”, whereas he “leads”.

The verbal trickery actually amounts to a mockery of democracy.

In a democracy, the politicians in government administer – which is why we call it the Administration as in the “Labour Administration”. Politicians in government administer the State on behalf of the People, who are the embodiment of the Nation’s Sovereignty. In a democracy, leadership is relegated to party politics, not state affairs. When the Leader leads the Nation and declares to embody Sovereignty, it’s a democracy no more.

Dr Muscat speaks as if he went up Mount Sinai, spoke to a burning bush, and climbed down carrying two Stone Tablets he claims were given him by the God of Liberalism to lead his people to the Promised Land of economically laissez-faire milk and socially libertine honey.

Coming from a politician who continuously preaches secularism – to the point that he thinks Catholicism should not feature in a new constitutional document – these pseudo-religious discourse and referencing mark the absolute zero of political incoherence. Dr Muscat brazen-facedly uses religious undertones to convey messages about himself as the one who has been touched by divinity, the anointed one, the Messiah.

I am, of course, not the first to make this observation. I must give credit to somebody else who first noticed this trait: that insightful commentator of Maltese politics and brilliant maverick, Joe Demicoli of banana republic fame.

Already in 2008, when Dr Muscat took over the leadership (not administration) of Labour, Mr Demicoli had published a song, called Inħobbkom, depicting Dr Muscat as the Messiah. Over the years, it got more than 230,000 views on YouTube, and given that it’s in Maltese, that number is truly meaningful. It might have had the (undesired?) effect of inoculating the adoring masses against the truth, or even of signalling that it was fine to accept the new leader as ... Messiah. Irony can at times pay Customs duty on behalf of the truth.

These considerations apart, it becomes patently clear to whoever seeks to be objective, that this elaborate PR exercise – “we are not perfect but there’s really no alternative” and “let the nation unite behind the Anointed One, he who has the gift of the second sight, the Chosen One, the Leader” – is a far cry from democracy.

Does it really matter? If the hay is abundant and the sun keeps shining, should we really care?

According to experts in economics, the growth will not last long; soon the economy will start cooling down. It goes without saying that Dr Muscat is fully aware that nothing lasts forever. This might lend new insight as to why he is slowly “transitioning” toward his exit (and it’s not only because of the Mizzi-Schembri shenanigans).

But once he leaves, we shall have to deal with a messy messianic legacy. I seriously wonder whether it will be healthy for the development and maintenance of democracy in Malta.

One of the basic tenets of democracy is that no member of society is divine. This stance has a longstanding pedigree. For instance, King Charles I of England was convinced he could cure people with his touch. King James IV of Scotland, who later became James I of England, famously said that “even by God himself they [kings] are called gods”.

The divinity of kingly rule was mainstream ideology in the past, but its head was (luckily and literally) chopped off a few times to drive the point home that it was not the case. In a democracy all humans are born equal; nobody is divine in a democracy.

Democracy thrives on the accountability of politicians and the transparency with which they conduct their political business. The politician who believes he or she is not to be held to account and whose dealings fall short of transparency (because “we are not perfect” but “there is no real alternative” since “we lead” and “the others only administer”), damages democracy no end.

Do we stand to lose anything if this happens? Should we care?

Though the answer is obvious to the intelligent, it is much less so to the others.