Policies not politics

During a conversation with a friend of mine, on how politics is pursued, not just in Malta, but in every democratic system where more than one political party partakes in the national agenda, we concluded that the world needs less petty party politics and more policy oriented politicians.

Only last Monday, in his weekly epistle on The Malta Independent, former Labour leader Alfred Sant, complained that Malta’s neutrality is risking becoming a matter of politics, claimed and ignored as the moment dictates – rather than as a matter of principle.

His not so subtle dig at the current Labour administration was clear: Malta is following wherever convenience leads her rather than following the strict axioms dictated by our neutrality.

The way our neutrality is defined in our Constitution is practically passé, if one follows the letter – rather than the spirit – of the text.

But what I and my friend perceive, is the shift from principles to convenience in the way so many political parties in Europe and in the world act. Many politicians are finding that sticking to principles does not produce the required results – and often a play with words takes over. The required results include the approval of the electorate.

Policy is a set of rules or principles that guide decisions. A policy implies a commitment or statement of intent. It is because of policy that people, an organisation, or a party is held accountable.

Politics, on the other hand, imply sleights of hand and achieving what was thought to be impossible. Often the game of politics covers up the ditching of well-known ‘sacrosanct’ policies.

Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, who was known for her anti-EU rhetoric when in Opposition, is showing that her stance in government seems to adapt to the EU – not by sticking to policies – but by playing politics with the EU. She is now trying to teach Hungary’s Viktor Orban to do the same trick, so that the basic differences between the EU and his politics disappear into thin air.

She helped persuade the Hungarian leader to go along with a landmark fund for Ukraine. It was a big moment both for Europe and for her. It was a big moment for Meloni, who sealed her credibility as someone who could play an influential role in the top tier of European leaders. ‘She likes to act like a bridge,’ said Roberto D’Alimonte, a political scientist at Luiss-Guido Carli University in Rome.

Viktor Orban was isolated, the sole holdout to a landmark European Union fund for Ukraine worth billions. As pressure mounted on him on the eve of an emergency EU summit last week, he needed someone to talk to. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister, who had long shared his antagonism to the EU, was that sympathetic ear.

Over drinks for an hour, Mr Orban complained about being treated unfairly by the EU for his hard-right politics. A hard-right leader herself, Ms Meloni told him that she too had felt the prejudice. But, she said, instead of attacking the EU, she had tried to work with it in good faith. That approach, she argued, obliged the EU to engage with her too, and in the end, it came through for her by agreeing that Italy had complied with requirements for the release of billions of euros in COVID relief funds.

Ms Meloni now leads the European Conservatives and Reformists, a group of hard-right parties that includes the Spanish hard-right party, Vox, and Poland’s Law and Justice Party, both of which have recently suffered humiliating electoral defeats.

Meloni has done little in the way of real reforms, but she has proved pragmatic, ditching hard-line policies and moving away from her past populist and inflammatory rhetoric.

It is a text book case of politics overcoming declared policies.

Breaking with tradition?

In British history, the secrecy of the monarch's health has always reigned supreme. Buckingham Palace's disclosure that King Charles III has been diagnosed with cancer shattered that longstanding tradition.

‘Never complain, never explain,’ Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth II, was known to say. Charles has withheld details of his illness and treatment, and in that way, is carrying on her approach, but in beaming a sliver of light from inside the palace walls and his own life, the king has broken with established royal tradition.

The world still does not know the cause of Elizabeth's death in 2022 at the age of 96. In the final years of her life, the public was told only that the queen was suffering from ‘mobility issues’. Her death certificate listed the cause simply as ‘old age’.

Way back in the late forties/early fifties, the British public was not told that Charles' grandfather, King George VI, had lung cancer, before he died in February 1952 at the age of 56. Some historians have claimed that the king himself was not told he was terminally ill.

In the annals of power, leaders and their advisers strive to maintain – or at least, not undermine – the perception of being strong and in control. To allow any perception of vulnerability or weakness could spark a fight for the crown – or encourage a coup.

The former Soviet Union was famous for neglecting to mention when its leaders were sick, or even dead. Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, were secretly sick and died soon after their ‘election’, one after the other in the 1980s. Each event sparked scrambles for succession.

Though some polls show that the public is friendly toward Charles, opposition and apathy to the monarchy are both growing. In a recent study by the National Centre for Social Research, just 29% of respondents thought the monarchy was ‘very important’ – the lowest level in the centre's 40 years of research on the subject. Opposition was highest among the young.

The news of the King’s malady was received with great sympathy in a country in which 3 million people live with cancer. On average, one person is diagnosed with cancer in the UK every 90 seconds. That means 1,000 new cancer cases are detected every day.

The news that the king has joined those ranks hopefully heralded a new era of transparency in an era of social media and misinformation.