The opposition we need

I am not at all surprised at Labour's performance in government. I have long smelt the coffee Joseph Muscat was brewing on various issues, ranging from hunting and planning to migration. My only surprise was how fast the new government was in shedding any pretence at meritocracy and setting its own patronage system in motion.  

But what surprises me more is the Opposition's failure to stand and be counted on the issues that matter.

Surely the PN faces an ideological quandary. As a centre-right, business-friendly party it has been outflanked by the pro-business and nationalistic brand concocted by Joseph Muscat.

Meanwhile, those who looked up at the PN as the natural party of government with the power of dispensing patronage now can easily identify with Muscat's party. Muscat has added the seduction of government to his already strong arsenal of weapons.

In short: if the PL does not mess with the economy, it seems destined to become hegemonic and the past months show that Labour seems intent on increasing its majority while in government by charming former Nationalists seduced by power.

But still, this underscores two factors.

The first is that there are genuine Labour voters who cringe at the ideological somersaults committed to increase Labour's majority, who will become increasingly restless. Labour might be stretching itself too much in its bid to become a "natural party of government": compromise is understandable for some, but devising a system of government aimed at keeping the 'switchers' aboard is offensive to those who hoped for change.

Some of my social democratic friends also cringe at the new breed of former Nationalists supporting their party. One case in point is the party's complete amnesia on the Mistra saga before the 2008 general election. But the appeal to former Nationalists may run deeper than this and may well reflect a process of ideological convergence. One example is migration. It was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, when still a Nationalist MP, who first proposed in 2009 that migrants should be towed within swimming distance to Libya.

Secondly, there is a segment of switchers who voted Labour very reluctantly and only because they were fed up with 25 years of uninterrupted PN rule. Under Simon Busuttil the PN now has a golden opportunity to break the chains of the past and re-inventing itself, as a modernising and reformist force, a political centre which looks towards the left.

And the past months have created a number of opportunities for the PN. The petition for a Spring hunting referendum sponsored by Alternattiva Demokratika and green NGOs, offered Busuttil a golden opportunity. He could have simply ditched previous commitments made to the hunting lobby by his own party. He already had the perfect justification: it was hunters who did not keep their word by persisting in acts of illegality.

By ensuring that that the 34,000 signatures are collected in a few weeks he could well have dealt the new government a devastating blow, by forcing on it a referendum where Labour would be forced to take the same side as the troglodytes in the hunting lobby. It was a golden opportunity to present Labour as off-putting and reactionary.

For some mysterious reason, Busuttil seems more keen on keeping the few remaining hunters on board, foregoing the opportunity of attracting a generation of voters who regard hunting a retrograde activity.

The PN has also been remarkably absent on happenings at MEPA. On this count, the PN clearly stands to gain by asking for an apology on what happened between 2003 and 2008 when development boundaries were extended, and stand to be counted in its opposition against any relaxation of planning rules.

On civil liberties the PN has done a couple of symbolic gestures aimed at the gay community, most notably the apology to Joanne Cassar. But Busuttil continues to dig his own grave by excluding gay marriages, leaving Muscat the opportunity of raising this issue again before the next election.

For I would not exclude Muscat changing his mind on gay marriage before the next election, once again outsmarting the PN. What better way than pre-empt Muscat?

Like David Cameron in the UK the PN can present a conservative argument: questioning the need of a parallel civil union regime by proposing the strengthening of the institution of marriage by making it more inclusive. Surely it might lose the support of some moral conservatives... but where can these traditionalist voters go?

The PN also remains silent on social issues like low wages. Beyond the rhetoric on precariousness, the fundamental reality in Malta is that wages are still too low.  

In this context, supporting calls for an increase in the minimum wage would definitively turn the PN in to a popular reformist movement. Increasing the minimum wage fits perfectly in the PN's traditional emphasis on improving the quality of life by attracting investments, which pays rather than rely on cheap labour. Perhaps this could be alien for a centre-right party but Busuttil may well remember that Muscat had no such qualms in reinventing Labour as a pro-business party. What if the PN is daring enough to do the same to Labour from its left?

On immigration, the party is understandably facing a quandary as Muscat does pander to the sentiments of a misinformed or misguided majority. But Busuttil cannot afford to run with the hares while hunting with the hounds. By standing for a principle, he would gain the respect of some liberal voters and let Labour identify itself with troglodytes. In fact, being attacked by the migrant-bashing crowd may be an asset. As things stand Busuttil is still targeted by the far-right crowd without scoring points with liberals.

At the end of the day, the PN has to choose whether to face Labour as a modern centre-left party clashing head-on on issues of principle, or to simply move from one scandal to the next, each time taking the risk of reopening the baggage it inherits from PN administrations.

The problem for the PN is that for every scandal it exposes, Labour can easily dig up a skeleton from the PN's cupboard.

More importantly when it comes to good governance the PN needs to lead by example even at local level. How can the party criticise the government for not issuing a tender for the award of the gas supply agreement when the PN-led council in St Julian's also issued an "expression of interest" to choose the operator of an old people's home?

In the end of the day the PN may well bank on projecting itself as a "normalising" force in the face of Labour's most blatant excesses. The problem with this is that Labour is already manufacturing popular common sense, which is in more often than not a less sophisticated version of the PN's way of doing things. In some cases it can even be more sophisticated.

In such a scenario (reinforced by a reduction in electricity bills in the coming Budget) I would not exclude the PL retaining or even increasing on its majority in next year's MEP elections.

To avert this fate, the PN needs to re-invent itself. Fast.