Government’s screeching and damaging U-turns | Mark Said

How many more U-turns can Robert Abela stomach? His latest overnight rethink on his protracted and stubborn refusal to launch a public inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s tragic death adds to a growing list of public second thoughts.

Calling him Mr U-turn sounds like a reputation well-earned. In a short time, he has a history of often panicked policy changes. It started off in January of 2020 when, after defending his wife’s right to tender for government work, he publicly announced that, on second thoughts, the best policy was for her not to tender.

A few days later, he made another U-turn when, after first nominating disgraced former minister Konrad Mizzi to the OSCE parliamentary assembly despite public outrage and advice to the contrary, he revoked that nomination, ostensibly paying homage to the tenets of good governance.

In February of last year, in the face of growing public protests against the Marsaskala yacht marina plans, he rowed back on the controversial plans.

Coming to the amendments proposed with respect to the Criminal Code provision making abortion an offence, it was a major U-turn in so far as it was very clear from the outset that, in order to minimise electoral collateral damage, he would eventually have to substantially dilute the consequences of the original Bill, which he finally, and thankfully, did.

It is indeed appearing that this particular hallmark of Abela’s government is also leaving its mark on other ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Take, for example, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard’s U-turn on the promised reform of the court experts ‘racket’.

A new system promised by the former minister Owen Bonnici was to include public access to the list of court experts, which is compiled by the justice ministry after it issues public calls for interest. Yet the present minister is refusing to make the list public. The reasons behind such a U-turn are anyone else’s wild guess.

Robert Abela and his Cabinet ministers too often boast how courageous they are in taking timely decisions, in stark contrast to past Nationalist administrations. That this government quickly decides major issues, all too often without consulting stakeholders, despite public consultations launched, and in direct contest with majority opinions, is true, but the common approach has been one of charge-retreat.

Could these U-turns be due to nervousness? Could it be that there is a single common denominator that runs through too many of the climb downs to be ignored? Why is the government showing itself to be prone to making U-turns? Is it the result of bad advice from officials, necessitating their peremptory removal? Or is it the result of a one-man, autocratic show?

This subject is dominating private discussions among Labourites, and every politician in Malta has a different theory. There is a bigger neuralgia in government: nervousness about being outflanked by who knows who. Many of these U-turns by Robert Abela’s government have been reluctant, angry, and preceded by repeated denials that they would happen, maddening Labour MPs that defend the government's initial position but are then left floundering when Castille changes its mind.

While the public is more forgiving of U-turns than usually imagined, the reversal over the abortion amendment Bill and the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry could still be damaging for Robert Abela. Humiliating, screeching, and embarrassing: These were some of the adjectives that appeared in local media after those two overnight U-turn decisions were made. In Maltese politics, the phrase ‘U-turn’ is inevitably followed by the idea that the act of reversing a policy is nothing short of political hara-kiri.

Curiosity is in the air as to what the public thinks about the government changing tack. Do the majority subscribe to the idea that government U-turns are normally a bad sign, showing they are incompetent, weak, or have not thought their policies through properly in advance, or a good sign, showing they are willing to listen and change their minds when people complain or situations change? Die-hard Labourites look upon U-turns as a healthy sign of a government that listens. Older voters are particularly sympathetic, convinced U-turns are on the whole a sign that politicians are responsive rather than reckless.

All very well, in theory at least. While Labour supporters may have had cause to add other adjectives over the last political gaffe, they did not, until today, have much reason to doubt the Prime Minister’s determination. The main obstacle is that the change will not fully reverse the damage. It is often said that voters have short memories, but the key political issue, Abela’s wavering governing style, will not go away.

Another issue is that the latest U-turn also points not just to a policy weakness but to the fragility of the Labour majority. What this creates is a whiff of panic that is beginning to hang over the Robert Abela administration. It is that, rather than the smell of burning rubber created by a screeching U-turn, genuine and right-minded Labour supporters are seriously tempted to walk out of the Labour fort.

It is fair to say that Abela’s premiership hardly ever got off to the smoothest of starts, with widespread criticism of how he mishandled sensitive issues. He has now shown that he is no longer a stranger to a change of heart, and who knows what’s more to come from our flip-flopping PM?

Robert Abela is prone to missteps. He appears to be more like a wobbly shopping trolley.

Watch out for more shifts of tone, changes of heart, and all-out U-turns.