[ANALYSIS] Message in a logo - the colours of a campaign

Joseph Muscat's main concern during this campaign is clearly that of retaining that segment of Nationalist voters who could potentially be voting Labour for the first time in their lives. 

Over the past weeks, he has shown determination to remodel his party into a broad church, which comes across as a slightly more socially liberal version of Eddie Fenech Adami's party in the 1990s. In the past few weeks, this process has been completed through the replacement of a hardliner like Anglu Farrugia with the moderate Louis Grech and a concerted campaign directed at voters who perceive themselves as "middle class"- an elastic term which basically includes anyone who is neither poor nor conspicuously rich.

The party's new logo does betray a pastel touch of old labour aesthetics, namely the national flag in a circle which is reminiscent of the old republican emblem. But it also emphasises the national over partisan theme. 

In fact its purpose is to temporarily replace old symbols of tribal identity with a national motif. The absence of Labour flags from Labour's first rally was clearly meant to give an impression that old Labour is history, even if the party still harbours within it protagonists from the Mintoff and Sant eras.

The slogan "Malta Taghna Lkoll" (Literally, "Malta Belongs To All of Us") is clearly meant to send two messages: that Labour is appealing to all social categories and classes and that those excluded from real or perceived cliques can trust in Labour to treat them fairly.

Still, it does not contain a trace of antagonism towards any elite, as was the case with "Malta Taghna Lkoll Mhux tal-Barunijiet", which had featured in the run up to the 1996 general election. In fact Labour seems keen to win a segment of the business elite, which feels excluded under the Gonzi administration. 

In fact while the term "barons" refers to a particular caste or class of people, the term clique is more elastic as anyone can feel excluded at times for both legitimate or illegitimate reasons: ranging from not obtaining a planning permit, to losing a tender to someone perceived as being close to the government of the day.

Surely it is a slogan which is bound to haunt Labour in the future.  For it is inevitable for some segment of society to feel excluded and to blame this on a dominant clique.   Much will depend on concrete policies with regards to appointments and the way decisions are taken.

Moreover Labour's campaign hinges on its ability to deliver policies, which can benefit all, and sundry: i.e. an ability to retain tax cuts proposed by the current government and still retain those aspects of the welfare state, which lies at the heart of Labour's identity.

A clear example is today's energy proposal, which marries the neo-liberal principle of hiving off a significant part of Malta's energy supply to the idea of putting more money in everyone's pocket without the state or employers having to fork out the money. 

Probably had a Nationalist government proposed something similar it would have been accused of selling Malta's energy supply to a foreign company. But it is more problematic for the PN, which has not been averse to privatisation of key sectors like banking, to attack Labour for promoting private investment in energy sector.

Surely it is a proposal which follows the script of Muscat's narrative: that living standards can improve without the need of any sacrifice in an "all gain no pain" brave new world.  One risk is that people could start suspecting that somewhere down the line, there will be a catch.

In fact this hinges on the availability of a private company willing to deliver energy at the same set price for 10 years: something which will enable government to reduce bills and in a less polluting way than Heavy Fuel Oil.

The catch in all this is that we will only know this after a tender is issued after 10 March; and we would only know the conditions when the fine print of the tender documents are issued. 

Correctly the bidder will only be known after a public tender is issued. For if the party already has a company in mind this would raise questions about the party's commitment towards transparency and good governance. But in the absence of a known bidder, Labour's proposal remains hazy.

Ultimately the guarantee being given by the party is Joseph Muscat taking "personal responsibility" for the implementation of its energy plan.  Muscat is once again banking on surveys showing that he is more trusted than Gonzi.  But while Muscat's emphasis on gimmicks like launching his campaign at midnight could impress voters attracted by his dynamism, it could also lead other voters to question his seriousness.

A safe and secure future

The PN choice of slogan ('Futur fis-sod: xoghol, sahha, edukazzjoni' - "A safe and secure future: work, health, education") banks on the current government's success in weathering the international economic crisis and to restore growth in certain sectors of the economy like tourism. 

It also intelligently links Malta's ability to perform well in the future with the future sustainability of health and education and its future ability to create jobs. 

Surely the slogan underscores major economic weakness like a rising public debt and a deficit which increased by €62 million over last year's figure. 

It also underscores the impact of the various fiscal commitments made in the last budget on the sustainability of public finances and that many of the jobs being created are of a precarious nature.

Yet the PN's strongest point remains its ability not to get things wrong during the world's greatest economic crisis since the great depression of the 1920s. In fact the PN's strongest weapon is the fear of the unknown, a fear that a future government may get it all wrong and thus upset the applecart at the very moment when recovery seems in sight. Still by fostering fear that a Labour government could put everything in jeopardy, the PN risks appearing divisive.

In fact the PN's major problem is that while Labour stands to gain from being inclusive, the PN has no choice but to be divisive in its attempt to discredit Labour and thus bridge the gap in the polls. Moreover in the absence of a brilliant present, the PN's fortunes now depend on fear of a darker future.

Less effective than the slogan is the PN's logo, which is reminiscent of a detergent brand and harks on the idea that the PN is a party of diversity. In reality, while middle-of-the-road and even liberal voters could vote the PN because of its economic credentials, these voters are less likely to vote for it for promoting diversity. 

In fact memories of the party's stance against divorce, its inability to deliver a cohabitation bill first proposed in 1998, its insistence on a highly restrictive IVF law and its ambivalence on gay rights, speak volumes on the party's commitment towards diversity. 

Surely the diversity element in the logo could be meant to counter this perception and indicate that with Simon Busuttil as its second in command the party is heading towards a more inclusive future.  But this could not be enough to counter the image of the PN as a conservative and confessional party.

You know where we stand

Alternattiva Demokratika's choice of slogan clearly indicates that the party will be focusing on those issue, which distinguish it from the major parties, which shy away from a number of issues championed by AD. 

An indication of AD's campaign was given by Carmel Cacopardo's short intervention in last Saturday's televised debate between deputy leaders: challenging Grech and Busuttil on their party's stance on issues ranging from the decriminalisation of drugs to the Armier squatters. 

It has also managed to marry its environmentalism with a number of civil liberties commitments ranging from gay marriage to a more liberal IVF law. In this way AD could come across as the party which raises real issues in an otherwise image-based campaign; but it also risks alienating anyone who disagrees with one or some of the issues it is presently raising. 

It is also doubtful whether AD can rely on the sort of left-wing middle class voters, which catapulted the Greens to prominence in countries like Germany. In fact polls put AD's support at less than 2%. Irrespective of the result achieved, AD is using its limited space to widen the scope of debate in a two-month campaign which risks degenerating in to weeks of repetitive speeches.  In fact the length of the campaign could work to AD's benefit, as people get bored of hearing the same sound bites and slogans.