One does not simply ‘kick Ian Borg upstairs’…

It had to happen, I suppose. After over two decades of entirely accurate (well, most of the time, anyway) electoral predictions… it was inevitable that I would sooner or later call it WRONG.

Not, perhaps, the result itself – but then again, we didn’t exactly need Nostradamus for that one, did we? – but rather, a small prediction I made roughly three weeks ago: when I wrote that the only real change this election would bring about, was “a little electoral game of Musical Chairs, whereby the same old policies get to be implemented by all the slightly different (but otherwise largely identical) faces in Robert Abela’s new Cabinet…”

See what I mean? Little did I realise just how significant that ‘little game of Musical Chairs’ would turn out to be, in the end.

Or how it would leave us with so much more to analyse and discuss, than the entire election campaign…

For it seems I was not the only one left utterly gobsmacked by Robert Abela’s appointment of Ian Borg to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs…  and no, I’m not referring only to Ian Borg himself, either. (Though if you want a rough idea of how the former Infrastructure Minister himself reacted: I suggest you look at the pic he uploaded on Facebook that morning. All it needs is a little thought-bubble, saying… ‘HAQQALANQAS!’)

This, for instance, is how public policy lecturer George Vital Zammit put it: “I am very surprised. [Foreign Affairs] is one of the most wonderful ministries to have, don’t get me wrong, but it’s several steps down from what [Ian Borg] had… It is much less powerful, and historically bestowed upon seasoned politicians who are on their way out of politics and into retirement.”

And that’s just a diplomatic way of saying that it’s the Biblical story of Uriah, all over again: you know, the same Uriah who was sent by King David to fight on the front lines… with the predictable result that he, um, got himself killed in the process (thus allowing King David to get what he himself all along wanted, etc., etc.).

Hence, I suppose, the general reaction of ‘surprise’. For, love him or hate him – and those seem to be the only two available options, in Ian Borg’s case – you can’t exactly describe him as ‘on his way out of politics’ (and even less, ‘into retirement’), can you?

Indeed, this is precisely why so much contrasting emotion is even directed towards Ian Borg in the first place. If his admirers love him so much, it’s because they perceive him to be ‘energetic’, ‘successful’… in a word, a ‘doer’.

And if his critics hate him… well, it’s for precisely the same reason (i.e,. because Ian Borg very ‘successfully’, and very ‘energetically’, does all the things that PISS THEM OFF!)

From that perspective alone: there are obviously going to be far, FAR more ‘Ian Borg admirers’ in Labour’s own camp, than ‘Ian Borg detractors’. I mean, just look at the election result: which catapulted Ian Borg to Parliament on two districts (including the one that didn’t elect him in 2017) with over 7,000 first-count votes.

Now: given that the Labour Party also somehow managed to LOSE just a little more than that (around 8,000 votes) in the same election…  well, I’d say that makes Ian Borg – ‘love or hate him’, as always – a rather important piece on Robert Abela’s chess-board, right now. In fact, it might not even be an exaggeration to describe him as one of the major foundation stones, upon which the Labour Party’s entire super-majority – its ‘Temple of Solomon’, if you want to carry on the Biblical analogy - was built…

Certainly, he is not ‘only old Uriah’ you can just send off to the front-lines, any time you want to ‘get rid of him’. At the risk of repeating a rather tired meme: “One does not simply ‘kick Ian Borg upstairs’…”

So I can only imagine that Robert Abela must have had his own, very compelling reasons, to take that sort of decision.

And here, Zammit puts it slightly less diplomatically than before: “It could be that Abela wants to curb Ian Borg’s power in his districts, but this will definitely not go down well with Borg’s constituents. There aren’t many favours you can offer constituents when foreign minister…”

Having said all this: there could well be some very good reasons to account for the same decision… and not all of them are necessarily as selfish as King David’s, either.

Ian Borg himself hinted – even though his facial expression suggested otherwise – that he was ‘honoured’ by all the ‘trust’ and ‘responsibility’ bestowed upon him: thus implying that if he was entrusted with the (let’s face it: pretty darn difficult) task of restoring Malta’s international reputation, it was precisely BECAUSE he is seen as such an ‘energetic doer’ in the first place.

There may even be some truth to this, to be fair: but if the idea really was to choose the best, and most qualified, elected representative for that particular job: no offence to Ian, but Robert Abela had other options at his disposal; including some with far more direct experience in foreign affairs (like Miriam Dalli, for instance. I mean, she was only an MEP for years, you know… not to mention Vice-President of the European Socialists…)

But no matter: that’s only one possibility. Another (admittedly less likely) one is that… who knows? Maybe it was Robert Abela’s way of admitting that all those Ian Borg critics really did have a point, all along (or at least, those among them who ‘hated’ the environmental consequences of his actions; instead of just Ian Borg himself).

In this scenario, Abela’s reasons would have nothing to do with – ooh, let’s see now: because Ian Borg was getting ‘too big for his boots’?

Because he had - unwisely, with hindsight - signalled his intention to contest against Robert Abela for the PL leadership, back in 2020? (Only to change his mind at the last minute: as I recall, with the words, ‘I was at the bus-stop when the bus arrived, but decided not to get on board…’)?

No: it would simply be because Robert Abela belated realised that all those environmentalists were actually quite right, to complain about Ian Borg’s heavy-handedness as Infrastructure Minister…  and if there was any ‘cutting down to size’ involved at all, it was of exactly the same variety as Ian Borg’s own former policy regarding trees. (You know: ‘chop them all down, before they get in the way of our well-laid plans’…)

If so, there is even some ancillary evidence to prove it: it’s not just that Ian Borg was removed from the Infrastructure Ministry, and placed somewhere where he could do less damage… it’s also that his former job was given to former Environment Minister Aaron Farrugia, no less…

Not, mind you, that Farrugia’s modus operandi was all that very different from Ian Borg’s anyway - look under ‘Blue Lagoon’ for further details – but still, there it is.

There are undeniably other explanations, than what is the likeliest of the lot by far (i.e., that Ian Borg really was ‘sent to the front-lines’, to rid Robert Abela of a potential future rival.)

And besides: even if we do go with along with that final interpretation… it still doesn’t change the overall implications.

If anything, it is just further evidence that our electoral system really does create the conditions whereby ‘certain ministers’ end up wielding dangerously disproportionate power: to the point that they eventually need to be ‘uprooted’. Which also means that…

Gee, who would have ever guessed? It turns out that Alfred Sant was right all along, about that whole ‘power of incumbency’ spiel back in 2008. It seems that ‘being in positions of genuine power’, really does translate directly into ‘the ability to buy votes through influence’ …

But that tells us a lot more about the flaws in our electoral system, than it does about, say, Ian Borg’s actual suitability for the post of Foreign Minister; or even the political wisdom – or otherwise – of ‘kicking him upstairs’ into it.

Among other things, it tells us that the entire way we elect our representatives to Parliament – elsewhere known as ‘Democracy’ - is ultimately rooted only in what George Vital Zammit describes as… ‘favours you can offer constituents’.

And granted: that may not exactly be a ‘shocking revelation’, in itself. After all, Ian Borg was hardly the first minister to have ever benefitted from the ‘power of incumbency’; and he’s certainly won’t to be the last, either…

But what I do find a little surprising is that… we all seem to have accepted it, haven’t we? We all seem resigned to a situation, whereby:

a) the appointment of a Cabinet minister is based on precisely the same consideration, that we all instantly recognise to be a ‘corrupt practice’ when it comes to voting (‘What’s in it for me?’)… and;

b) A portfolio as vitally important as Foreign Affairs (which is now arguably more urgent than ever) ends up getting relegated - ‘historically’, please note – to the status of ‘political exile’: a place where to despatch your ‘undesirables’ (and from whence they shall never be heard of again…)

But hey, let’s look on the bright side. Like I said earlier: it did, at least, give us a whole lot more to discuss, than the entire election campaign. (Like, for instance, the urgent necessity of reforming this hopelessly flawed electoral system of ours, once and for all…)