Message not received

Confronted by a crisis situation, his reaction is invariably to sing his own (and party's) praises. As such, he unwittingly often comes across as though he refuses to acknowledge point blank the reality on the ground: inauspicious enough if he were an ordinary citizen, but a positively alarming one coming from a Prime Minister.

Yesterday's performance in Parliament was vintage Gonzi in this respect. An audience unfamiliar wit recent events might be forgiven for assuming that Gonzi had only just registered some sort of resounding victory. But in fact the very opposite is true: if he felt compelled to ask the House for its confidence, it was precisely because his government briefly lost its majority just last Friday.

As a result of Franco Debono's abstention, the career of a senior government minister - and with it, the government's already slender hold on power - was saved only by the Speaker's casting vote. This took place just over the past few days; and yet last night, Gonzi spent nearly all his 45-minute address to the House boasting about his government's many successes and achievements... achievements which were apparently so very numerous, he even had to write them all down on paper.

Only for the briefest of moments did the Prime Minister pause to acknowledge the extent of the public relations nightmare that now goes by the name of the Arriva transport reform. One quick mumbled apology later, and back he was on altogether more familiar territory - talking about himself and his government almost literally as of they were 'God's gift to the country'.

But this same territory is not familiar only to Gonzi himself, but also to anyone who has closely followed his political career since 2004. In fact one was forcefully reminded of a similarly boastful speech by the Prime Minister during the Nationalist Party's Independent Day celebrations speech last September: when Gonzi repeatedly stressed, to tremendous applause, that the PN "was always on the right side of history".

It fell to others to quietly point out afterwards that there have been several instances when the PN was not on the right side of history at all: for instance, the language question of the 1930s, or its closeness to fascist Italy before the Second World War, or its more recent collusion in the 'Interdett' incident of the 1960s.

But while these issues are now buried deep in the annals of time, Gonzi's 'history' boast reverberated across the Fosos barely a couple of months after the ill-fated divorce referendum of May 28. Is it possible that he had so soon forgotten the stand he himself had taken in that campaign? How he had not only backed the losing horse, but also unwisely tied his entire party's fortunes to a platform which has now been discredited by the electorate?

Under Gonzi's supervision, the PN remains to this day statutorily shackled to an official anti-divorce position, almost six months after the country voted 'Yes' to divorce. Where does this leave both Gonzi and the PN, if not very clearly on the wrong side of history?

Similarly, many of Gonzi's claims in yesterday's debate give the impression of a man who wil resist reality, when this does not reflect his own wishes. For instance, his defence of the utility tariff regime may have been understandable, given the automatic advantage the Opposition has always tried to lever from the same unpopular measure (it is, after all, always easier to claim to have solutions, than to actually solve a problem in practical terms).

But Gonzi's claims to having taken 'responsible' decisions in this regard ring especially hollow, when one bears in mind Enemalta's highly precarious financial situation. Not only do we know, from financial estimates presented in 2009, that Malta's only energy provider is patently unsustainable, even with the current high rates it charges; but following the testimony just last week of former BWSC representative Joe Mizzi - who laughably claimed to have lost all correspondence with the Scandinavian firm, over a €200 million contract to extend the Delimara power station - not to mention the doubts and suspicions that linger over that particular contract, it is insensitive of Gonzi to now claim the moral high ground, when at best he is standing on very thin ice indeed.

And yet, Gonzi talks of his government's handling on the energy crisis as though it were exemplary, instead of deeply suspicious - as even the Auditor General suggested in his inquiry report. Much the same could be said for several other claims made yesterday in parliament, which - when dispassionately compared to the reality of the situations they purport to describe - tend to reveal a rather economic and selective attitude towards the truth.

Clearly, both Lawrence Gonzi and his government need to pulled back down to earth. The reality is that, while Gonzi himself can certainly take some credit for managing a difficult economic scenario, his administration has been demonstrably short of infallible on a number of counts. It was therefore inauspicious to hear confirmation yesterday that Gonzi has clearly not taken this message on board.