Great, so now we’re all ‘pro-establishment’ again...

Odd, how so few people seem to be seeing the amusing side to this. So in recent months, our two political supremoes – Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil – have been pitched in a battle over which of the two is more ‘anti-establishment’. 

I’ve already had a go at them over this, so I’ll keep it brief(-ish). Muscat and Busuttil lead the only two political parties which have shaped Malta’s entire political ‘establishment’ in the 50 years since independence. Since 2004, both parties have been singing from the same hymn book when it came to international ‘establishment’ politics, too. Both are now pro-EU; both are self-proclaimed champions of the free market economy, of globalisation, of privatisation, and of pretty much everything else that passes for the socio-economic status quo in 21st century Europe.

Much more pertinently: both PN and Labour are equally plugged into the system of political patronage that represents the rest of Malta’s socio-cultural ‘establishment’. They are financed by broadly the same business and industry interests; they share the same basic vision for the country’s economic development. The two parties are likewise almost interchangeable when it comes to the activist networks they employ from street-level upwards; and as we repeatedly discover regardless who’s in government... neither Labour nor PN sees anything wrong with treating the machinery of the State – the civil service, public broadcasting, etc. – as an extension of their own political arsenal. 

Muscat and Busuttil, in brief, do not possess a single anti-establishment bone between the pair of them, anywhere in their bodies. They may differ vastly in personality and charisma, but in actual modus operandi they could almost be identical twins... who were both dipped into the same pro-establishment cauldron at birth. 

And yet, and yet... it has suddenly become politically important to forge a distinction between the two parties, precisely along this particular line. Why, I wonder?  I mean, apart from the obvious reason ( i.e., that they have converged so totally and utterly on absolutely everything, even their own leaders have difficulties remembering which side they’re actually on...)

 As far as I can see, there is only one possible reason. ‘Anti-establishmentarianism’ is suddenly perceived to be an election winning-ticket. Just look at the rest of the world for a moment. Brexit was the decidedly anti-establishment of the two options in that referendum, and it won hands down. Donald Trump is widely perceived to have successfully ridden the crest of an anti-establishment wave, all the way to the White House. Bernie Sanders had a similar, less successful run in the internal Democratic presidential nominee race. And this week, ‘anti-establishment’ forces were blamed for scuttling Matteo Renzi’s reform plans in Italy.

The converse, naturally, works just as well. It was Hillary Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street – and the network of Washington lobbyists and cronies that represent the US establishment – that ultimately worked most to her disadvantage. Every individual scandal she had to battle during the campaign was born directly out of those connections. The implications were clear: she lost as a result of the ‘pro-establishment’ label.

To be ‘anti-establishment’, it seems, is suddenly to be a winner. And being, at the end of the day, just a complicated word that few people actually understand... how on earth could either Joseph Muscat or Simon Busuttil pass up such a glaring opportunity for a free electoral boost?

Small problem: while Busuttil and Muscat clearly think they can just appropriate words and change their meanings to whatever suits their political purposes... those words still retain their original meaning – connotations and all – and both Busuttil and Muscat will be judged according to the real, not imaginary, meanings of the terms they use.

What would it sound like to the rest of Europe, when the Prime Minister and Opposition leader of an EU member state both claim to be riding a wave of populism that is quintessentially euro-sceptic in nature? Did they bother to look up who’s considered ‘anti-establishment’ in the rest of Europe... and why? Geert Wilders in the Netherlands... Jean-Marie le Pen in France... Italy’s Lega Nord... and outside the political spectrum: Wikileaks... Anonymous... Occupy Wall Street... 

Hmmm. I bet they didn’t actually think of any of that at all... until their attention was suddenly drawn to the fact by Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament.

“What is this establishment?”, he retorted, just after Muscat repeated his anti-establishment boast at a recent jointly-addressed press conference in Valletta. “It means something that has been established. In the EU, we have established democracy, the rule of law, dignity and protection of human rights, and the fight against hate speech, racism, and anti-Semitism. If that makes me part of the establishment, then I am proud to be part of it.” 

Yikes! Was he talking about the same ‘establishment’ both Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil have repeatedly vowed to destroy in recent weeks? Was it really just a few seconds after Muscat told reporters: “I am anti-establishment because I challenge the status quo”? If that’s the case: who was Schulz actually addressing with that remark? The journalist who asked the question... or Muscat who had only given such a wildly contrasting answer?

Regarding the first question, it is difficult to say, because it seems Schulz doesn’t know the meaning of the word either. ‘The Establishment’ generally concerns the power behind the throne... invisible networks that ride roughshod over any legislative structures devised by central authority. In the USA, those networks are taken to mean corporate influence over politics: which doesn’t go away because a country is ‘democratic’, or because it ‘respects human rights’. If anything, democracy has always strengthened such networks, which in turn have found it progressively easier to control the democratic process.

Nor does it help that the ‘pro-establishment’ forces of Europe, at present, are the ones who repeatedly end up trying to sabotage or delegitimize the actual results of European democracy. Brexit was an anti-establishment vote. The people of Britain democratically chose to leave the EU. The establishment responded by hurling abuse at the British people for daring to take the ‘wrong’ decision... and even as we speak, they are still trying to find a way to thwart the verdict, and just pretend it just didn’t happen at all. (The latest stratagem, for instance, is to offer British citizens EU membership on an individual basis.)

But then again, Martin Schulz IS a representative of today’s European political establishment. He is entitled to give us the establishment view of that word’s meaning. And according to that interpretation, to be ‘anti-establishment’ – as our two political supremoes like to call themselves – means to be a racist, anti-democratic and abusive exponent of the Far Right.

How long do you reckon before Muscat and Busuttil scramble meekly back to their own previous ‘pro-establishment’ posturing? I say it will happen in 10... nine... eight...