A template for social democracy, but at whose expense?

Over the past three years Labour in government has ushered in significant reforms such as universal and free childcare, co-education and the teaching of ethics in state schools, introducing a clearer distinction between church and state, taper benefits which facilitate the integration of the unemployed, a first-time policy on the integration of migrants, civil unions, a relaxation of censorship laws, a law on party financing and a whistleblower’s act.

It may still shun more wholesome social reforms like an increase in the minimum wage and a second pillar pension system, but it has started blacklisting companies offering precarious conditions from the public sector which was rampant under the previous administration. 

But Labour has also ticked the wrong boxes to revolt anyone with left-wing sensibilities, starting with the aborted pushback of migrants (which thankfully Muscat now regrets), the sale of Maltese citizenship to the global rich (defined as “people of talent”), a counter-reform in planning which reversed the 2010 ban on regularising illegalities on ODZ land, and the transfer of public ODZ land in Zonqor to a Jordanian construction group, which was rushed through parliament on the eve of the Christmas holidays.

Protesting against the Zonqor private university in 2015, and celebrating civil unions (next photo)

Celebrating in Valletta on the night civil unions were made law in Malta

It is also the party which has partly privatised our energy supply, giving the impression that it was closing the Marsa power station because of the Electrogas plant when the reality is that Marsa was closed before the LNG plant started operating – thanks to the state-owned interconnector.

Alongside this is a growing perception of cronyism and a consolidation of a presidential system of power. It may look benign but is increasingly behaving like an organised system to perpetuate power. Even the aesthetics are increasingly monarchical, and less parliamentary or collegial.

The ‘can-do government’

Panamagate was the cherry on the cake. The actions of Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri sum up all that is wrong with Muscat’s Labour. It is a party which glorifies the talents of the wealthy, irrespectively of how they accumulate wealth. The rush to facilitate business interests in the face of ‘bureaucracy’ is key to understanding previous scandals like Cafe Premier and the Gaffarena expropriation. It’s what Silvio Berlusconi termed the ‘can-do state’ (“governo del fare”). Checks and balances require scrutiny but the latter requires bureaucratic hurdles and delays to projects and business ventures.

By drifting to the right on economics, and creating a hegemonic bloc that includes those who left the PN fold (some of them for the wrong reasons), some would argue that Muscat created a climate that made it possible for Labour to win power and enact a number of progressive reforms. But many of Labour’s problems with governance originate from pre-2013 days, having opened itself up to former Nationalists and unprincipled businessmen or rent seekers eager to join a new establishment. Veteran ministers schooled under Alfred Sant’s leadership seem to have been the least vulnerable to accusations of cronyism. 

Muscat personally consented to a €4.2 million 'bailout' for a failed cafe operation so that the government takes back a 65-year lease they could not pay back.

Panamagate exposes the limits of this logic of compromise with business ‘to get things done’. Muscat was not shocked by his close associates’ decision to open offshore companies in Panama and did not sack them on the spot, and that says a lot about his frame of mine.

And this shows he lacks the natural sensitivity of someone on the left who would have felt a deep sense of anger when confronted by these facts. Instead the impression he gave was that he does not mind, except for the fact that Panamagate became an international scandal.

So it is indeed fair to state that by associating progressive reforms with bad governance or lax regulations, Muscat is endangering Labour’s accomplishments in office. Or that these progressive reforms were simply a decoration on the Labour cake, aimed at legitimising a self-serving system of power. And it also fuels a misguided perception: that liberalism on social issues or morality, is akin to laissez-faire policies on the environment and on social policy.

In reality, the country right now needs some good, old-fashioned sobriety.

A responsibility to be outraged

Those who support Labour for its progressive reforms or for simply ridding the country of the PN but close an eye on Panamagate, have a historical responsibility.

If Muscat weathers this crisis to keep either Mizzi or Schembri in office or in his administration’s central nervous system, the message would be that the Labour Party has been entirely absorbed by Castille.

And where does this leave us?

Let’s face it: Labour has been morphed into Muscat’s image – the party went ahead to elect Mizzi as deputy leader even as the Panama scandal broke. And the PN, which operated its own patronage network in office, still lacks that sense of moral leadership and legitimacy required in moments of crisis.  After 25 years in office, it remains all too vulnerable to Muscat’s deflective tactics; by skirting around party finance laws to hide the names of those lending it money, it once again failed to walk the talk on governance. Legal? Yes. But it defies the spirit of the law. [Evarist Bartolo’s proposal to make it illegal for anyone to open accounts in countries where information for tax purposes is not automatically available would be a welcome addition to the PN’s proposals on good governance.]

The PN operated its own patronage network in office and still lacks that sense of moral leadership and legitimacy required in moments of crisis. After 25 years in office, it remains all too vulnerable to Muscat’s deflective tactics.

But past mistakes should not be used to attack the Opposition’s duty to hold government to account, otherwise we’d livein dictatorship where the parliamentary opposition is blackmailed in to silence. 

There has never been a greater need for civil society to take a leading role, not just in expressing the deep shock of the decent part of Maltese society on Panamagate, but also to restore a new ethic of governance based on republican values and the protection of the common good.

The May 7 protest calling for the resignation of Mizzi and Schembri, which comes a year after the protest against the Zonqor development, could be a clear sign that Malta is changing and would not allow any party to drop its anchors in the murky waters while in power.

In 2003 we believed that the EU would be the best insurance for our democracy. That was only partly true. In reality the best insurance lies in the vibrancy of civil society in speaking truth to power irrespective of which party is elected in office.