In the national interest, Dr Alfred Sant told Prime Minister Gonzi last weekend, change your Cabinet.

This is, in all probability, going to be Dr Sant’s autumn campaign. As in all political campaigns, there is a lot here that stems from political calculation and precious little that comes from love of the national interest.

Dr Sant, in making that helpful suggestion, must have known quite well that Dr Gonzi’s window of opportunity to effect a Cabinet reshuffle had passed and that not having reshuffled his Cabinet by Summer 2005, Dr Gonzi has condemned himself to going to the country with this team. For it is quite likely there will not be any Cabinet reshuffle between now and Election Day, unless something extraordinary and unplanned happens.

And after so many months when the Labour media has been saying week in week out that a reshuffle was in the offing, and then nothing of the sort happened, and now that it is clear there will not be any reshuffle, here comes Dr Sant, fresh from Down Under, magnanimously urging a reshuffle “in the national interest”.

To which, of course, one answer could be to refer back to the turbulent years 1996-1998 when Dr Sant’s Cabinet was always work-in-progress, first with a key minister departing, then with another minister forced out. And, of course, a government elected to serve a full term but with a majority of one, permanently poised to fall, with instability being the order of the day.

So one interpretation of the helpful suggestion “in the national interest” could be that Dr Sant is trying to infuse this administration with the same level of instability that infected his two-year rule.

Having said all this, there is much to say in favour of the suggested Cabinet reshuffle, as long as one forgets it is Dr Sant who is suggesting it.

There are quite a number of serious problems besetting this administration. This paper has often stated that there is no centre in the government. One very plausible reason for it could be because Dr Gonzi inherited too vast a Cabinet. Malta does not need such a vast Cabinet: a smaller one would serve better.

Conceivably, Dr Gonzi could, and perhaps should, have made a number of changes when he took over from Dr Fenech Adami, but he chose to emphasise continuity rather than change and so kept most of the ministers in their posts.

Then, who to change? A number of ministers have been in their present posts for two or even more legislatures, such that they have become synonymous with them. Many have undertaken long-term plans of action beyond the scope of one legislature, which, if they do succeed, may well prove to be beneficial considering that Malta has always been plagued by short-term-ism, with each minister coming to his role as if nothing existed before and as if everything had to be done within five years and nothing could be seen beyond the five year term.

And then also, who to appoint? The silent baying from the backbenches is indeed resounding and some do indeed promise – while others, however, promise trouble. Collectively, Dr Gonzi’s backbench is weak, weaker than the Front Bench. Hampered as any Maltese prime minister is, with the Constitutional requirement that ministers must come solely from the ranks of elected MPs, the only country in Europe to have this, any prime minister finds himself severely restricted in his choices. Perhaps the real solution here is to adopt a more austere Cabinet, rather than one which includes more than half the MPs.

Dr Gonzi’s real problems lie elsewhere. True, a Cabinet reshuffle, on the one hand, will bring in instability while a defensive continuity, on the other hand, will continue to see more of the same. It may well be that as we go along and the different plans come through – the road network, the restructuring in the public ownership, the new hospital, and the new schools – the country will come to see the results of the government’s work.

The real problems lie elsewhere. Coming, as he does, from a leadership battle which has left the party somewhat depleted, with a party structure that was (is) totally engrossed in the battle and which has lost any autonomy it once had, or should have had, vis-à-vis the government machine, and with a party structure that cannot be said to be representative of the PN voter base, Dr Gonzi is in a weak position getting weaker.

Every decision taken is fast eating into the wide range of support that in 2003 enabled Malta to join the EU and put a largely unmerited and unloved government back in power.

The next time around, there will not be any EU accession to save Dr Gonzi and his administration. The decisions taken in recent years have seen the PN lose what could have been its natural ally – Alternattiva, lose that section of the party that identified itself with John Dalli, lose that wide section of the electorate that would like a newer and more open Malta, with at least an acknowledgement that social Malta has changed (and perhaps more than just a token acknowledgement with regards to ad hoc relationships and divorce), and lose all those who are increasingly concerned that the government is not delivering and worse, consistently reneges on the many promises it made pre-2003. Plus those whose environmental concerns have become paramount, and those who feel their take home pay is far less than it used to be.

And mentioning Mr Dalli, one very consistent reason for not making any reshuffle could probably be that Dr Gonzi (as against Dr Sant) does not want to increase the number of the disaffected within the ranks.

One notices the re-emergence, punctual as ever, of quick-fixes as the months roll on and deliverables quietly recede. More than any Cabinet reshuffle, this is what Dr Gonzi’s administration should be wary of – the quick fix mentality which makes voters realise how much the government has not delivered and the state of panic it finds itself in.

The thrust of the coming months must therefore be to open up the government, not to the ambitions of the back bench but rather to the expectations of the country. To do this, it must become a government that listens, actually listens, to the country and the people.

Forget increasing communication – what every government and administration thinks of when it faces failure – what is needed is a more receptive government which is ready to accept the need to change rather than one which continues to insist on doing everything by itself. You don’t need a Cabinet reshuffle to do that. At the same time, however, not having a reshuffle crystallises a government that refuses to change: just like George Borg Olivier’s refusal from 1966 to 1969 to change any of his doddering old men.