Muscat and the size of his majority

Replying to questions in a recent and interesting interview published in The Malta Independent, former minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici commented that during the 2008-2013 PN legislature, "some cabinet members were behaving as if the PN had a five-seat majority rather than one, or even half a seat."

In truth, although one accepts that the size of the majority that wins an election should influence the behaviour of the government, the notion that popular support gives elected leaders the right to govern as they please undermines the true democratic spirit.

Having passed 100 days with a new head of government, one is justified to pose the question respecting whether Joseph Muscat's attitude as prime minister is in fact influenced by the wide margin with which he won the election on 9 March.

Some comparisons - odious as they can be - are in order. A recent article in The Economist with the title 'Zombie democracy' comments on the position in which Turkish Prime Minister Edrogan has found himself, complaining about the mass protests against his government in spite of his party being the clear winner in three consecutive elections. The article goes on to state that "majoritarianism" - a credo adopted by elected but autocratic rulers which holds that electoral might always makes right - is not true democracy. It then follows by explaining why.

It maintains, "The issue is how the relationship between supporters and opponents is managed. In part this is a matter of rules and institutions to constrain a leader's power and to allow the aggrieved to find redress." Yet the article in The Economist had to point out, as well, that "the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often the majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader's job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters."

The article concludes by asserting that "although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his balance."

The majority that Muscat garnered in the election last March is impressive, not only in terms of Maltese politics but also in terms of European politics. Probably the only European prime minister who obtained greater voter support, percentage-wise, is Hungary's Viktor Orban. His majority was big enough to make it possible for his government to change the country's constitution without needing the support of any other parties - a move that has consolidated his power and threatens the rule of law by endangering the constitutional system of checks and balances. So says the Venice Commission, an independent advisory body of the Council of Europe on constitutional matters.

Muscat's majority, of course, is not enough for him to be able to make such earth-shattering moves. Moreover, it is still early days, and although it is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the process does not happen overnight.

Judging by his performance in a public consultation meeting last Tuesday, Muscat is treading carefully, consciously aware of the pitfalls into which his large majority can easily lead him. His is a far cry from Dom Mintoff's famous assertion that once the majority had spoken, the minority must bow its head to the will of the majority. Mintoff said as much on his 1976 electoral victory, little realising that those words were to haunt him in five years time, when he won a majority of seats with a minority of the popular vote.

Muscat's interaction with his audience was an interesting aspect of Tuesday's meeting. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the seating arrangement was such that Muscat was looking up to his audience, rather than the other way about, as it used to be (during the electoral campaign). Then the audience looked up at Muscat, a situation emphasising that he was the great Maltese hope, ready to lead the people into a new chapter of their history. Now, it is Muscat looking up to the audience, emphasising the notion that he is serving the people. I am sure that the different arrangements are the result of a conscious, pre-planned marketing ploy, the sort which Muscat has proved to be so adept at.

Muscat's much-criticised decision to appoint an enormous cabinet could also eventually prove to be a plus. His predecessor appointed a very small cabinet and then wallowed into the nitty-gritty of a particular, relatively large part of the administration, while practically abandoning everything else in the process. By contrast, Muscat has consciously avoided being directly responsible for anything. All the departments and institutions that are technically part of the PM's portfolio are run by a parliamentary secretary, and the prime minister has the time to keep a constant overview on what each cabinet member is doing, correcting mistakes as he goes along.

Muscat has wasted no time in correcting those of his administration's mistakes which met with general popular disapproval, such as the infamous assumption of clout by Marlene Farrugia MP in her partner's ministry, the short-sighted 'political' transfers of some 90 staff members at St Vincent de Paul and Franco Mercieca's abuse of the waiver allowing him to keep some of his private practice. Muscat could have done an Edrogan and justified these mistakes by quoting his massive electoral win. Instead, he seems to have decided to respect those who do not agree with him and has given signs that he does not react by being overtly hostile to public dissent.

For its part, the Nationalist Party seems to keep on underestimating Muscat's penchant for surprise and is finding it difficult to tackle a prime minister who has consciously chosen to act in a very different way from autocratic leaders, in spite of the wide majority that characterised his electoral victory. Autocratic types are much easier to criticise and oppose, of course!

All this might change over time. The spirit of democracy, as has been pointed out, resides in the head of whoever is in charge, and history is replete with leaders who embarked on a political career with impeccably democratic intentions and ideals but ended up behaving in an arrogant, autocratic manner.

In this respect, Joseph Muscat has still to pass the test of time.