The Nationalist Party has dominated Maltese politics for the last quarter of a century. What we see around us today is largely the product of the values and policies pursued by successive Nationalist Party governments, bar a brief blip in 1996/8. There can be no doubt that Malta has been transformed from a comparatively backward Mediterranean country into a modern and relatively thriving economy, firmly embedded in the European Union.
The question the electorate now faces is whether it wants a change of leadership, a rotation of the faces at the helm. I say this advisedly as I do not discern any radical difference of policy between the two major parties except at the margins. Both parties are committed to what by European standards might be termed the social-democratic model of governance – essentially a sympathetic brand of capitalism, allied to the socialist commitment to equality and the welfare state.
Ultimately, therefore, at the next general election Malta is going to be invited to make a choice between the Nationalist Party “devil you know and the steady hand on the tiller” and the Labour Party “young, fresh, face which will take care of all your problems”. The fact of the matter is that, whoever wins, will face the same (massive) national problems and will seek to solve them with broadly similar policies.
This said, as the electoral day of reckoning approaches, it might be helpful to draw up a balance sheet of the government’s performance over the last four years to enable readers to draw their own conclusions whether on grounds of competence and good governance it deserves to be re-elected.
Starting with the principal successes. Although there are undoubted weaknesses, stemming essentially from our membership of the eurozone, there can be no doubt that Malta has weathered the economic storm of the last four years with remarkable success. Employment has remained stable and Malta has passed all the stress tests and met the benchmarks laid down by the European Union. That Malta should be bailing out Greece, and may have to contribute to bailing out Italy, Portugal and Spain, is extraordinary in itself. The perennially vulnerable economy of Malta has come through successfully and the people have been spared the pain experienced elsewhere.
The Libyan crisis was also successfully navigated, though we must be careful not to exaggerate the difficulties the government faced. The options were fairly straightforward and I am confident that the “guidance” we received from the EU, the United States and Britain kept us on the right path.
Other success stories can be chalked up for the way tourism has been handled in a very difficult international economic market. And the conduct of the Mepa reform and the increasing environmental awareness in Malta. We still have a very long way to go on both these subjects, but at least, thanks to good ministerial leadership, the prospects are better than they have been for 50 years.
The closure of the dockyard and the re-structuring of Air Malta – both state-run industries which were leeching money out of the taxpayer – were hugely difficult decisions handled well. I regard the decisions taken about Valletta, including the controversial opera house site and city gate project, as necessary, long over-due and courageous decisions by the government whose benefit we shall come to appreciate on completion.
The government’s management of its relations with Europe has been exemplary. Its use of the large EU funds has on the whole been well directed and the work, albeit incomplete, on improving Malta’s shoddy road network and the conservation of the fortifications and other cultural heritage sites most commendable.
What about the principal sins of commission and omission? Here, the list of candidates competing for attention is long. It is these that have led to the toxic image of the Nationalist Party as “the nasty party”, its public internal squabblings and the disastrous meltdown, to quote one Nationalist MEP, in the recent local council elections.
It is difficult to know where to begin. As an example of sheer arrogance, it is difficult to beat the secretive (self-)award of large ministerial pay rises at a time when the rest of the population was being restricted to a meagre cost of living allowance. But the political ineptitude and misjudgement shown in the handling of the divorce referendum, and its aftermath, must come a close second in terms of what it told us about the attitude of this government to the will of the people. It was a copybook example of how not to tackle a sensitive social issue of this magnitude. Hard on the heels of these two examples of sins of commission must come the manner in which the increases in the water and electricity rates were dealt with, closely followed by the botched introduction of the – undoubtedly necessary – transport reforms.
It matters not that the minister who has been closely involved in pushing through all of these policies will no longer be contesting the next parliamentary elections. The harm has been done and the effects on the party’s image are incalculable. In all these cases, the seemingly contemptuous attitude of the government has come to epitomise the impression of a government that has lost touch with its people. Unless there is a real turn-around in perceptions, these actions could well come to be seen as sounding the death-knell to the Nationalist Party’s chances of re-election.
Sins of commission and omission abound in other areas too. In no particular order, the higher cost of living, not just as the result of higher water and electricity rates; the increasing gap between rich and poor; the way in which the power station extension has been handled and the plight of Enemalta; the obvious weaknesses in the local councils structure; the inefficient justice system; the dysfunctional prison system; the inability to tackle Malta’s dire water shortage and the illegal extraction of this precious resource; the continuing gross construction over-development; and the tax evasion, cronyism and perceived corruption in so many areas of public life.
All these give the impression of a government that has lost its way. But it also omits to highlight the number of issues the government has studiously avoided tackling through negligence or for fear of incurring electoral disadvantage. For example, the long-term unaffordability of Malta’s social security system and state pensions, the creaking health service and an education system that, despite its huge investment, has failed too many students and has not led to a corresponding improvement in standards. The introduction of a law on freedom of information, legislation on party financing, efforts to curb widespread tax evasion, a revision of the electoral system and public broadcasting, all of these have been ignored. There are many others.
I have set out a tough critique of the government. Its sins of commission and omission are numerous. Will the Opposition Labour Party be any better at tackling this legacy of outstanding work? Does it have the vision, leadership qualities and the right calibre of potential ministers to do any better? These are the issues that should sway the choice when the electorate comes to vote.