[ANALYSIS] Joseph Muscat: Decisive or panicking?

Joseph Muscat had a tough gig on Thursday night. During a press conference, he had to explain exactly why he had asked his deputy leader to resign... without one referring to Anglu Farrugia's lacklustre performance during last week's Xarabank debate.

The official reason given for Anglu Farrugia's forced resignation was Muscat's disagreement with the deputy leader's criticism of a sentence handed by magistrate Audrey Demicoli, whom he accused of political bias  in a speech during an activity where Muscat was present. 

Magistrate Demicoli, accused of political bias by Farrugia, had acquitted a man of vote rigging in the March 2008 election. Her judgment was overturned by an Appeals Court, which found the restaurateur in question guilty of threatening to sack one of his employees if she did not vote for the Nationalist Party. The restaurateur was fined €800.

Labour's spin was to underline the high standards Muscat expects from his MPs. The PL contrasted this to Gonzi's unwillingness to remove Austin Gatt.

The Xarabank flop

But the resignation came in the wake of Farrugia clearly emerging worse for wear after a debate with new PN deputy leader Simon Busuttil. This fuels the perception that, following the debate, Muscat came to see Farrugia as a serious liability hampering his chances to win an election, which for many was already a foregone conclusion.

The perception that Muscat asked Farrugia to resign because of the fall out of the Xarabank debate is strengthened by Farrugia's claim that his speech on Sunday had been well received by Muscat, and it was only following an article in The Times (which revealed the magistrate's name) Muscat contacted him abroad, where he was on a brief his holiday with his family, and asked him to resign.

While the speech criticising the magistrate gave Muscat a pretext to ask for Farrugia's resignation, the timing seems to suggest the Xarabank episode was ultimately the determining factor.

For this reason, Farrugia may well go down in history as the first politician in Malta to resign for not delivering well on TV. While Muscat may sell this episode as one ushering a new culture of resignation, the timing suggests that Farrugia's major crime was spoiling the image of the party and undermining its electoral chances.

Still, even if this was Muscat's ultimate motive, it still underlines the Labour leader's ability to perform drastic surgery and to hold his MPs accountable for their actions.

It could also highlight Muscat's ability to turn a problem into an opportunity, by setting in motion an election for a new deputy leader, thus eliminating a liability and replacing it with a possible asset. Unlike Sant, Muscat is flexible and refuses to be cornered even at the cost of taking risks. This makes it harder for PN strategists to predict his actions.

Panic alert?

Yet the counter-argument to all this is that Muscat's bold but abrasive decision was prompted by panic and the fear of a PN recovery in the polls.

By removing Farrugia, Muscat also underlined the perception that it was Simon Busuttil who gave Farrugia a knockout blow in the Xarabank debate. Now, like some sort of heavyweight champion, Busuttil is awaiting the next challenger in the Xarabank boxing ring.

Moreover, Labour delegates will be left wondering as to which of the candidates presenting their nomination can match Busuttil's appeal.

Muscat risks playing into the PN's strategy of pumping Busuttil's stature. This risks reducing the campaign to series of boxing matches between deputy leaders. In fact,  Xarabank have already announced a debate between Busuttil and the next PL deputy leader. While Muscat's bold decision has effectively disarmed the PN of one of its lethal weapons by removing Farrugia from the equation, Labour has continued to fuel the perception that Busuttil remains the protagonist of the campaign.

Moreover, at this stage of the campaign the PN despite trailing in the polls is managing to call the shots and constantly raise the stakes for Labour. In fact, Labour were at a loss as to how to deal with the Busuttil phenomenon, first trying to hide Farrugia by sending Franco Debono instead of him and than accepting to send him to the debate. The party's tit-for-tat strategy and its recourse to pranks and mockery could well have backfired badly. But instead of going one step back to rethink this strategy, Muscat has sent another shock wave to the electorate by asking his deputy to resign citing an official reason, which few believe to be the case.  

Rollercoaster politics

This could well have a roller coaster effect on the electorate, which could leave voters more disoriented and exhausted by the constant shifting of goal posts which is relegating important issues to the background. 

Still had Muscat retained Farrugia he would have been constantly thorn between the embarrassment of hiding him and the embarrassment of showing him.

One advantage for Muscat is that he is unlikely to face internal strife before the election despite his drastic move. Still, Anglu Farrugia'S declaration that that he "has lost confidence in Muscat" could de-motivate a segment of Labour voters.  But it is unlikely to lose the PL any substantial amounts of votes even if Farrugia's decision not to contest does not bode well. 

Better to be feared or to be loved?

Muscat's decision to force Farrugia to resign fuels the perception that Muscat can be cold, calculating and ruthless - qualities which would not endear him to the electorate. 

While Muscat's first days in office were marked by his "I love you" speech, he now seems to be abiding Niccolò Machiavelli's maxim that for a prince, it is better to be feared than to be loved. But showing this trait at the start of an electoral campaign is very risky. That could explain Muscat's nervousness on TV when announcing Farrugia's resignation on Thursday.

The decision to rush the contest to elect the new deputy leader during Christmas week also leaves the party weaker and the leader stronger.

For delegates will be asked to undo a mistake they did four years ago when they elected Farrugia. While four years ago the delegates decided against Muscat's favoured candidates, this time round they will have to choose Muscat's favoured one. 

The anointment of the PL's next deputy leader could also underlie the contrast with the way the PN elected Simon Busuttil in a contest with one of the Cabinet's foremost ministers. For Labour's contest may include a number of token candidates but the short span of the campaign and its proximity to Christmas (which limits campaigning) ensures that the leader's choice will prevail. All in all, this risks confirming the perception that the PL is simply following in the PN's footsteps.

A Boxing Day election?

Another questionable decision is that of holding the election to replace Farrugia during the peak of the Christmas season instead of holding it in the week between New Year's Eve and the official launch of the campaign. 

Muscat certainly wants to get the deputy leadership contest done as soon as possible to have his house in order before the campaign kicks in.

This could well be a strategic move to ensure that instead of a real contest which could degenerate into a bloodbath, the vote will be a simple formality; an anointment of a candidate who synchs with the party's appeal to middle of the road voters. 

But this risks alienating the sensitivities of voters who could recoil at the idea of a party electing its second in command and possibly the country's next deputy prime minister right on Boxing day. 

Still, at the end of the day Muscat did not have much of a choice, and his costly decision to remove Farrugia will save him from a potential minefield during the coming weeks. Ultimately, it could well have been a case of painful surgery to prevent a haemorrhage which could be even more costly in the future. Yet removing the albatross from his neck before it suffocates him also comes at a price.