As we approach the two-year mark of this legislature, we are beginning to see clear differences emerge between Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil. Naturally, some differences have long been clear.
But now it is clear that they are not only different men, each with their own distinctive personality. They are also not the same kind of leader. They also have a different vision of society.
What has made things this clear are the recent changes to the parliamentary group’s responsibilities announced by Simon Busuttil.
Joseph Muscat would have pre-announced an earthquake. He’d have gone on (and on) about how he’s not afraid to take decisions. He’d have presented the changes as an indicator of his swaggering kind of leadership, which he plays like a zero-sum game: His reputation must expand at the cost of somebody else. His idea of strength is to play on someone else’s weakness.
Alas, we women are all too familiar with this kind of leader. We’ve been avoiding them since our schooldays and wrinkling our nose when we run into them at the office.
Simon Busuttil, on the other hand, considered the issues quietly, actively weighing the PN’s successes and limitations, then took a decision. Or rather, a series of radical ones.
Two years of Labour government have already conditioned many of us to measure things with a Labour yardstick. Many people assumed that the changes to the PN parliamentary group were to be interpreted as a dramatic gesture which punished some individuals and rewarded others.
Simon Busuttil quickly dispelled such thoughts when an interviewer posed them. The changes were only part of a sequence, he said. Let us not blow them out of proportion.
Next, he said they were not about asserting himself as leader. He is not the kind of leader who puts himself in the limelight at the expense of others. The changes were about giving everyone in his group the chance to renew and reinvent him or herself. To bring their established skills to new areas. To learn how to see Maltese society from a fresh angle so as to serve it better.
It was about thinking of the PN and leadership in a new way. He is still the leader. But he does not behave like a ‘supreme leader’. He wants to lead a political party whose structure resembles that of Malta in 2015. Team-based, bringing together different skill sets, so that complex problems can be addressed holistically. Teams made up of people who are not boxed in by their previous work experience, so that they are ready to think innovatively.
Above all, a parliamentary group that has gone beyond established niches and behaves like a real network, building on everyone’s strengths.
What a difference with Muscat. As Opposition leader he declared political parties dead, so that he could free himself of the shackles of being accountable to party procedures and statutory discussions. Muscat cannot understand a political party that takes the time to discuss and debate an issue. He can only sneer at it. His idea of leadership is that of a supreme leader who stands at the pinnacle of a movement that, in the end, can only do his bidding.
It might seem to be terribly strong. When the crunch comes, however, we have seen that it leads to paralysis and holding out until the inevitable takes over. The so-called supreme leader could not take a decision on Malliagate and tried to brush it off somehow. He still has not taken a decision on the scandals tarnishing several of his ministers.
With Simon Busuttil, there is no fanfare. He does not lead using fear. He leads by inclusion. But when he acts, he really is decisive and ready to be radical while carrying the burden of responsibility.
We have the rest of the legislature to decide if both kinds of leadership are equally valid, or if one is more attractive and suitable for our society than another.
No points for guessing what this working no-nonsense woman, interested in practical results not bluster, prefers.