Robert Abela and the wear and tear of power

Robert Abela reaffirmed his party’s reformist and modernising mission in his closing speech to Labour delegates last Sunday, pitting himself against the “status quo” and the “conservative” Opposition.

Abela said the PL is the only party that believes in reform, progress and change, while the conservative “others” are comfortable with leaving things as they are.

“We will never cease to dream, and we strive to sustain and fulfil the dreams of Maltese and Gozitans,” Abela said.

What he probably meant was that Labour can only avoid getting bogged down in scandals of its own making by continuing changing the country.

In this way, Abela presented his audience of party activists with a narrative with the aim of galvanising them back into action in the challenging times ahead. As the chickens from the Muscat administration keep coming back home to roost, Abela knows that Labour can only redeem itself by its actions in government.   

Yet, his attempt to sell himself as a decision maker increasingly contrasts with a sense of lethargy and indecision creeping into the various layers of government including Abela himself who has a habit of testing the waters before acting, as he did before forcing Rosianne Cutajar to resign.

But Abela’s problems have been compounded by his navigation from one international crisis to another, with corruption taking on a new meaning in a context where many are struggling with rising prices. People are seeing government corruption and political patronage, in a different light now than they did during the so-called ‘best of times’.

Abela’s priority remains that of restoring the feel-good factor which made people forgiving of Labour’s uglier side. But to do that he also relies on an economic model, which in the same conference was criticised by Labour grandee and former leader Alfred Sant.

The economic model and its consequences

Sant understood Abela’s dilemma.  The former Labour leader said one cannot combat poverty and ensure social justice without taking care of the economy.  But Sant also questioned the economy’s dependence on low-paid workers.

“We must not forget the foreign and Maltese workers on a miserable pay. It is a truth that our economy is dependent on low wages. This injustice must be fixed. No one should be forgotten,” Sant said.

He also warned that the government’s economic success would naturally lead to temptation for bribery, corruption and “people putting their snouts in the trough”.

Sant’s words may be interpreted as an absolution of Labour by blaming corruption on the economic model rather than on the individuals involved. But his criticism may go even deeper than that of the Opposition, targeting the structures which enable and sustain corruption.   

And crucially Sant wants Labour to put fighting corruption back on its agenda warning that Labour should not make the same mistakes the Nationalist Party made while in government, “by ignoring the problem or denying it even exists”.

And significantly he warned Labour officials not to see their political role as a career opportunity, but a way to advance Labour ideals

“Ask not what Labour can give to us, but what we can give to Labour. No one is bigger than the party. No one is bigger than the country,” Sant told delegates.

And even here Abela falls short in extending his reformism to much needed reforms in party financing laws, laws regulating lobbying and the appointment of a national prosecutor to tackle corruption cases. Abela ignored the elephant in the room and failed to refer to the problems raised by Sant.

Land reclamationas antidote to stagnation

Abela’s concerns are more mundane. His greatest accomplishment so far was that of shielding the working class from the pain of austerity by absorbing the rise in the price of energy. This is no mean feat considering the situation in most other countries.

But Abela also knows that the economic model which sustains government’s social spending and indirectly his government’s popularity, depends on endless growth. Labour’s economic model hinges on the increase in tax revenue resulting from economic growth.

This may explain why in a speech devoid of concrete examples, Abela singled out land reclamation as an issue which will inevitably result in a backlash. In this context Abela warned of the “paralysis” that comes “when you stop taking decisions to avoid criticism.”

Abela is strangely hinting at the inevitability of a backlash before even presenting studies and plans which could allay these fears.  Moreover, land reclamation is hardly a controversial topic when limited to infrastructural works in ports. The problem facing Abela is the perception that land reclamation will be another gift to the construction lobby, especially if such projects have a real estate or tourism component.

Curiously it was at a similar juncture in 2005 that Lawrence Gonzi had toyed with land reclamation to project himself as a decision maker with a plan, after taking over from the larger-than-life Eddie Fenech Adami.

In so doing Abela seems to be forgetting that on environmental issues Labour faces opposition from movements and people who are anything but conservative and that community struggles often bring together people from across the political spectrum.  Moreover, the status quo and the establishment which he railed against also include those lobbies who hijacked Labour’s movement to create a concrete jungle.

The curse of the super majority

And while like any other politician Abela is keen on winning big, his speech betrays apprehension on the sustainability of his party’s super majorities. He may well be anticipating future losses by depicting the inevitable decline as a backlash against reforms which he will continue to champion.

“Don’t be afraid of criticism – be afraid only of not taking decisions to avoid backlash. The others want to take us there for the whole of Malta to be stagnant,” Abela warned.  This may well be seen as a sign that the Labour leader ‘is not for turning’, and he will proceed with his mission to change the country, even if it would mean alienating segments of the electorate opposed to change.

In so doing he is also projecting an image of strength and responsibility; two qualities voters expect from leaders.

Labour’s social reformism

Surely the reaction towards several positive social reforms Labour is pushing forward fit in squarely in the narrative of change evoked by Abela.  While such reforms may lose him support, they also serve to give Labour activists a sense of mission.

For example, the proposed amendment to draconian abortion laws, has not only brought out the worms out of the old conservative woodworks but has also aligned Labour with parts of civil society including many of Labour’s left-wing critics, albeit at the cost of alienating other influential sectors including some respected figures in his own party.

While Abela did not refer to this controversial topic, in an earlier speech, his deputy Chris Fearne pledged that the government would not give up on its drive to protect women experiencing complications in their pregnancies, adding that the government will not shy away from the necessary amendments to offer such protection.

From party to movement to party again?

Still one thing seems missing from Abela’s project: a wider movement supporting him. His dig at the Opposition’s obsession with “books and blogs”, also betrays the absence of a wider cultural space in civil society in Labour’s own orbit, which came because of the revulsion of left leaning intellectuals at the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Labour’s connection with big business.

If there is something which Abela can learn from Muscat’s playbook is the importance of sustaining a ‘movement’, which attracts people who do not identify with Labour but who support it on specific issues, thus addressing the growing disconnection between modern political parties and independent voters.  This is already confirmed by surveys showing more people intent on voting with their feet by abstaining.

Yet Abela’s inward looking mentality and paranoia may well thwart any attempt to reach out to those segments who may well sustain Labour’s reformist push in the next years.