Analysis | From GonziPN to MuscatPL

On Sunday, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat delivered an inspirational speech at the end of a general conference which saw Labour welcoming a number of former Nationalist voters such as criminal lawyer Emanuel Mallia.

The speech unofficially opened Labour's electoral campaign, at the risk of a big anti-climax if Franco Debono abstains on Thursday.

Once again, Muscat risks peaking and revealing his cards before the battle has even started, especially if the government survives Thursday's vote.

But Muscat has gone a long way in presenting an appealing alternative for Nationalist voters who for the first time of their life are contemplating voting Labour.

The speech was directed at those who for the past three decades voted Nationalist by default, mainly because Labour was passionately fighting on the wrong side of history. Muscat is the first Labour leader who states openly that in 1987 the electorate had closed an era "which had closed in on itself" by inaugurating "an era of liberty".

He also evoked shared collective memories when recounting his memories as a young Aloysian, of attending clandestine classes in the middle of the conflict pitting a Labour government against private church schools. Muscat's version of history, along with his personal biography, seems to rise above tribal politics, and is both inclusive and amiable. 

But his style may well belong to another era, before the economic crisis, when politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton could talk their way to power without rocking the boat. 

But while Tony Blair faced his clause 4 moment in his party, Muscat had a carte blanche to implement all the changes necessary to ensure victory for his party without ever asking his own party to discuss the fundamental questions on which policies will characterise a Labour government.

Muscat has fashioned his own life story to match the aspirations of disgruntled Nationalists. But do these voters expect him to talk about himself, or about how he would tackle the present economic crisis? 

In Muscat's brave new politics, vague statements of identity suffice to unite a party excluded from power for three decades, but this might not be enough for voters who are not immune to the news coming from the rest of Europe - which tells of painful austerity measures.

While in the past Labour had repeatedly placed itself on the wrong side of history, by not mentioning the eurozone crisis in his landmark speech, Muscat seems to be out of sync with contemporary history.

This omission impinges greatly on Muscat's pretensions of Statesmanship.

A narrative with a purpose

Narrating a personal biography is an effective way of winning empathy from voters, many of whom share the same collective memories of the young Labour leader.

It is also an effective way of turning the contest from one between parties to one between candidates in an Americanised 'presidential contest',  where personal experience counts more than policies.

Muscat clearly has strategic sectors of the electorate in mind when he related his experience as the son of a father of humble origins who, after earning the minimum wage for half of his life, took the risk of setting up a small business.

His anecdote on how he learned his first lesson on economics from his grandfather - a farmer who sold his vegetables to the middleman at a cheaper price than that sold in the market - was equally effective.

By focusing on his experiences, he can win over sympathy from the self-employed sector without even making clear political commitments.

And what could be more appealing to the floating voter than a politician with staunch Nationalists on his mothers' side, and staunch Labourites his fathers' side?

"How can I hate the other side if I come from a family which included both sides of the divide?" Muscat asked.

He recounted how his grandfather once told him that his side of the family sides with the Nationalist Party "because he represents the truth", but who secretly revealed to him that in 1976 he had voted for Labour because Mintoff had introduced pensions, urging him not to tell anyone about this secret. One wonders how his grandfather would have felt if he knew that his grandchild would reveal this secret to the Labour Party's general conference.

It was a clever way of reconciling the old Labour past with Muscat's PN-lite brand of politics. To Muscat's credit it gives a sense of closure to a society which is still ravaged by memories of conflicting partisan identities.

Muscat evokes the collective memories of many Nationalist-leaning families who, like Muscat, had to attend lessons in secret locations when church schools like St Aloysius - where Muscat had attended - were not allowed to open.

Yet there was a gap in the autobiography which Muscat presented to the conference. While he delved on his childhood memories, his decision to contest as an MEP and his decision to contest as Labour leader, he omitted any reference to his militancy in the Labour Party when it was fervently campaigning against EU membership. This part of history was exorcised by Muscat's repeated references to his wish to put Malta at the top of the EU's league table.

Still, Muscat never addressed the latent euro-scepticism in his party's grass roots, and it remains a mystery on where Labour stands at a time when the eurozone crisis is pushing European nations to further pool sovereignty.

In true American fashion, Muscat also does not refrain from projecting himself as a family man, a political phenomenon introduced in Malta by Lawrence Gonzi in the 2008 election. Still, while Kate Gonzi's role conformed to the European model - where politician's wives are increasingly visible but private emotions are kept out of the political sphere - Muscat has gone the American way by expressing his emotions in public.

Surely, Muscat is making the most of being the first Labour leader in living memory to have a stable family.  But by addressing his wife directly from the podium, he risks appearing corny.

Muscat even asked forgiveness to his children "if they someday watch the video of the conference" for suffering simply because they are his children. 

His evocation of his own children watching their father addressing the Labour conference some time in the future may well have betrayed Muscat's high expectations on the eve of a crucial no-confidence vote.

History and identity

What was striking in Muscat's speech was the art of reconciling contradictions. At the same conference - where the party welcomed back Dom Mintoff's daughter as special delegate - Muscat praised Eddie Fenech Adami's initial years after 1987, comparing them to Mintoff's best years between 1971 and 1976.

The fact that he managed to do so without upsetting anyone shows remarkable tact and skill.

Muscat moved on to depict the next election as another 1987, where the major issue facing the electorate is whether to close an era of "leadership by cliques".

But he did so by evoking a post-ideological age going as far as claiming that "the choice will not be between parties but on whether to close an era and start a new one".

Muscat's answer to those who asked for substance on what will constitute the new era was vague, though it remains a lyrical statement of identity.

"We are a united movement, which believes in the rights of the individual and that the State should not interfere where its interference is not warranted... a movement which believes in equality of opportunities because the country belongs to everyone and not to a clique, a movement which believes in social justice and the distribution of the wealth created by private enterprise and which believes in social mobility."

Muscat showed that he clearly read the signs of the times by repeatedly underlining the distinction between Church and State, and his belief that the State should not interfere in the personal choices made by individuals. One thing Muscat is clear about is that his party stands for free health care, even if he evades the whole argument on how to make free health care sustainable for future generations.

But this vague statement of identity leaves a lot of other fundamental questions - such as how Muscat plans to balance our budgets without resorting to anti-social austerity measures - unanswered. 

The risk is that in a 'Presidential' election, image will prevail over content and these issues will only be settled after the election.