It took Bernard Grech more than 100 days to line up his shadow cabinet but, at the end of the day, he left many portfolios as they had been established by his predecessor.
But what is more significant is that some of his attempts to shift responsibilities from some MPs to others were rejected, with Grech finally choosing to take the easier road by giving in to the demands of his underlings and leaving things as they were.
Reports highlighted how some MPs were livid after Grech suggested changes to their duties, and how they then ultimately retained what they already had. The PN leader has denied backtracking, but the silence of the MPs involved speaks volumes.
What happened these past two weeks rekindled past differences, led to new discrepancies and, worse, further exposed the weakness of the leadership.
100 days
Grech took more than 100 days to give his imprint to his shadow cabinet.
Normally, new leaders immediately embark on their own programme and one of the first things they do is form their own team. If they change nothing, it means that the previous leader was not that much in the wrong. And, by leaving things as they are, they are showing signs of lack of confidence.
Bernard Grech chose to keep the same formation after taking over from Delia, and that’s already one sign of fragility. PN MPs were kept wondering why it was taking so long, whether they should continue to invest their time on a subject that could be taken away from them before the election, and if they were going to be given a less important portfolios when Grech eventually made up his mind.
This led to three long months of uncertainty in the PN group. So much time had already been wasted because of the internal struggles that later led to the Grech-Delia race. Grech’s delay – and it was intentional, given that when asked by this newspaper in December, the answer was that the reshuffle will happen when the time comes because it is the prerogative of the leader – further compounded the appearance of an opposition that is ill-prepared to take over the reins of the country.
When, finally, Grech decided to shift the portfolios to his liking he found stiff opposition by some of the MPs involved.
No amount of sweet talk or strong arming worked.
Their reticence as well as reports that the party would have seen mass resignations ultimately led Grech to leave most of the MPs in the position given to them by Delia.
Why now
Results of a survey indicating that Grech had made inroads in his battle with Prime Minister Robert Abela, and that the Nationalist Party had eaten into Labour’s lead, is what most probably spurred Grech to think about reshuffling his team.
For the first time since taking over, Grech probably felt in a strong position to carry out what he thought were changes that were necessary to (possibly) strengthen his squad. He – and his closest advisers – probably thought that it would be easy to move his MPs around, giving more important responsibilities to people who supported him in the leadership race, and diminishing those of MPs who were on Delia’s side.
But it turned out that Grech is not as strong as he thinks he is.
The so-called Delia faction had remained quiet after “losing” the leadership race to Grech. Since October, they chose to give Grech time to find his feet in his new role. Grech could therefore settle in and, at least from the outside, matters appeared to go smoothly.
It was only when Grech put forward his reshuffling ideas that feathers were ruffled, and that the cracks in his leadership widened, exposing the PN’s fragility.
In a matter of days, Grech managed to destabilise the party again. After three months of apparent peace, the fractures of a party that is still frail were in the open again.
Health and tourism
The two sectors where Grech found the strongest resistance were in the health and tourism sector, for different reasons.
Health has been in the hands of Stephen Spiteri for years and tourism has been Robert Arrigo’s responsibility for longer.
When Grech wanted to change Spiteri’s portfolio, there were threats of mass resignations from the second electoral district, where Spiteri enjoys great popularity. Spiteri is the only candidate to have been elected from this district, which is predominantly Labour. The Nationalists who reside in this district are known to be among the harshest PN supporters, given the environment they live in. And when there were rumours that their favourite candidate was set to lose the health portfolio, which is one of the most important and even more important now since we are going through a pandemic, they made it clear that they were not going to accept this without repercussions.
The situation was somewhat different for Arrigo who, it must be remembered, is also one of the two deputy leaders of the party. Arrigo is an expert of the tourism sector, and any shift would have been perceived as a relegation to him. Again, Arrigo is among the most loved candidates in the districts he contests, and was elected from both the ninth and tenth districts in the last three consecutive elections. The MP who was offered tourism instead of Arrigo turned down the offer, realising that it would have resulted in loss of popularity.
In both cases, Grech was unable to go through with his plan, and left Spiteri and Arrigo in their place. This is easily interpreted as a sign that Grech is unable to take tough decisions out of fear.
Others
Therese Comodini Cachia was among other MPs who was not happy with Grech’s intentions. Initially, she was set to lose most of the responsibilities she had been assigned by Delia – national heritage, art, culture and the media. It must be recalled that Comodini Cachia’s name was put forward as a possible Opposition Leader when rebel MPs wanted Delia out, so perhaps Grech sees her as a threat to his leadership. Usually, leaders try to weaken who they see as their main opponents. Getting the good governance and human rights portfolio must have appeased Comodini Cachia, since they are subjects close to her heart. In the end, Grech was constrained to give her an important portfolio, probably against his own wishes.
Mario Galea was also reported to have been asked to give up responsibility for mental health, a theme that is dear to the Zejtun MP. Even here, the end result was that Grech had to reverse his decision, and he retained Galea as spokesman for this particular and sensitive sector.
It is rare that an NGO issues a statement commenting on a change in portfolio in a political party. But that is what BirdLife did when it became known that David Thake lost responsibility for the environment, which was handed over to Robert Cutajar, an MP elected from a district where hunting is popular. Thake ended up with the green economy and capital projects under his wing.
Apart from Arrigo and Spiteri, most other MPs retained their portfolio or most of what they had, including David Agius, Beppe Fenech Adami, Mario de Marco, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Karl Gouder, Clyde Puli, Toni Bezzina, Ivan Bartolo, Chris Said and Ryan Callus.
The most significant changes were to the portfolios of Claudio Grech, who is now responsible for political renewal and the party’s electoral manifesto; Kristy Debono, who took over the economy; Claudette Pace, who was appointed to oversee social policy; Jason Azzopardi, who exchanged justice for employment; Karol Aquilina, who took over justice but lost good governance; and Hermann Schiavone, now responsible for planning and construction.
Former leader Adrian Delia asked not to be given a specific responsibility.
The outcome
Bernard Grech’s reshuffle exposed a number of situations.
First of all, Grech does not appear to have taken hold of the party. The fact that he delayed his reshuffle by three months showed that he did not have confidence in his decisions, and waited for the right opportunity. But one good survey result is not enough. The PN, under Grech, is still to gain credibility as an alternative government.
Secondly, Grech is as yet unable to go through with his plans – or what he is being told to do by his advisors – and at the first hint of adversity withdraws his position. This may be seen as a sign that he is willing to listen, but at the same time it does show lack of leadership. Not being able to go through with one’s plans for a reshuffle – which, in this case, are his privilege as a leader – exposes his fragility.
Thirdly, all the talk about the party now being united behind Grech has gone down the drain. Years of friction and personal issues among members of what should be the same team are not wiped out just because there is a change at the helm. The animosity that built up in the past years took just one spark to be rekindled. Those who thought that the removal of Delia has united the party will have to reconsider.
Fourthly, the Delia faction may be in the minority but it still has a strong voice in the party. Delia himself showed strength in telling his successor that he does not want to be assigned a particular portfolio, and Grech showed weakness by accepting Delia’s position.