[ANALYSIS] Is Abela rehabilitating Joseph Muscat?

As the Prime Minister who presided over a period of breathtaking economic growth, Joseph Muscat may be seen as the ideal candidate to contribute his ideas for Malta’s COVID-19 economic recovery strategy.

He has repeatedly shown an ability to think outside the box, an ability that may prove useful in testing times. And he is now doing so free of charge, at no cost to the taxpayer. So what is the harm in listening to what he has to say?

Yet his return to the public sphere stems from reasons which led to his disgraceful exit, clouded by the close proximity of his closest political ally (former chief of staff Keith Schembri) to the alleged mastermind of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

This chapter still awaits closure and the fact that Schembri has not been arraigned for possible obstruction of justice still boggles the mind. The question remains: is this due to institutional paralysis in the face of powerful forces, or is it because the police is still working on a solid case?

Muscat himself still refuses to answer questions on how much he knew of Schembri’s relationship with Fenech. Now, his return to public service makes it easier for him to evade these very pertinent questions.

Any appointment and recognition gives the impression that Muscat can be trusted again in some form of quasi-public office, despite the lingering questions on a very serious matter: the involvement of close political allies in public office in what looks like a political assassination and in a number of murky business deals.

Rehabilitating Muscat

Unfortunately, the return of Muscat to the public sphere nurtures suspicions that he is busy working on his own rehabilitation. For what could be a better PR coup than presenting himself as the saviour of the Maltese economy from a testing moment?

This may not be Muscat’s deliberate intention. One should never underestimate the temptation former leaders have to return to some form of public service which keeps them in the public eye.

However, even if this was the case, it was inevitable any reappearance of Muscat in public would have been interpreted as an attempt to curry public favour.

Sure enough, Muscat himself has to be credited for leaving an economy in such a good shape that it enabled Abela to navigate through the storm, offering a generous rescue package without risking bankruptcy.

Even the much-derided sale of citizenship scheme came handy in ensuring funds for social investments in these testing times.

In short, Muscat may feel entitled to intervene to save his legacy from being destroyed by the pandemic.

Murky business deals

Yet Muscat’s ability to think outside the box often resulted in the kind of dubious local and international connections which have seriously undermined Malta’s international reputation. In addition, while Muscat is viewed positively by many in business circles, his pro-business mantra alienated environmentalists and social justice activists. For whenever Castille had a finger in the pie, suspicions of impropriety ensued. These included the AUM debacle, the sale of public hospitals to Vitals and the connections to Henley & Partners and SOCAR.

Moreover, his electoral strategy to co-opt businesspersons has often backfired. A case in point was the resignation of hotelier MIchael Zammit Tabona from the post of ambassador after comparing Angela Merkel to Hitler.

Many would fear that Muscat’s involvement would increase the temptation to kick-start the economy by once again pressing on the accelerator in sectors like planning and construction, thus undermining Robert Abela’s attempt to strike a balance.

A taste of continuity?

Muscat’s reappearance perpetuates the impression of continuity, and undermines Robert Abela’s attempt to distance himself from the Muscat era.

For after winning the contest against Chris Fearne on the premise of being the continuity candidate, Abela immediately took steps to distance himself from the Muscat era by sacking Neville Gafà, a close friend of Keith Schembri, from Castille, and former police Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar.

The reappearance of Muscat coincides with the ‘re-engagement’ of Gafà on migration-related matters in what looked a restoration of sorts. In short, it smacks of payback time for the support both Gafà and Muscat gave Abela before winning the leadership contest, even if their support was not welcome.

Moreover, despite facing international disgrace, Muscat’s legacy was never questioned within the party and he was even given the hero treatment upon his departure.

His return to the public sphere is bound to cause political ripples. He remains a larger than life politician who is revered by grassroots and turncoats alike.

Muscat fully knows that for Abela to consolidate his position, he has to take a step back and retreat to monastic silence.

Yet Abela may still feel in debt with Muscat for making his election as leader possible. Therefore, he may be willing to pay the price of being overshadowed by his predecessor.

Even the nomenclature chosen namely the reference to “the office of Joseph Muscat” – rather than styling it as the opinion of any other Labour MP – carries an institutional flavour, which perpetuates the impression that he remains a powerful force to be reckoned with.