[ANALYSIS] Muscat’s vision: Do not covet thy (rich) neighbour

Endowed with the gravitas which comes from power, backed by an apparently united team and exuding the confidence of a popular leader, Joseph Muscat has articulated a vision for the future of the country as a business friendly country where social conflict is exorcised as enough wealth trickles down to improve the lot of the working classes. 

While noting that the Labour movement was not "envious of wealth" and inherently pro-business, the Labour leader reiterated his commitment to reducing bureaucracy and make Malta an "automatic" option for foreign investors. In so doing, Muscat may well be deliberately equating social conflict with "envy". But while envy is an irrational and unarticulated reaction to social inequality, class conflict is often motivated by a desire for a fairer redistribution of wealth. Curiously, it was the American Republican politician - and presidential hopeful - Mitt Romney who had described President Barack Obama's focus on income inequality as "the politics of envy".

While unlike Romney, Muscat is concerned with equality, it is unclear whether Muscat is committed on reducing income inequality or is simply interested in having wealth trickle down from even higher towers. In this aspect, Muscat seems to have departed from the social democratic tradition which views inequality in income distribution as an undesirable phenomenon which weakens social bonds.

Muscat may also be treading on slippery terrain, considering that his socialist partners in Europe tend to favour higher rates of taxation, especially on financial speculation.

Surely, by insisting that his government is committed to turn Malta in to "a global model," Muscat is once again revealing a Mintoffian character streak, that of thinking too highly of himself as the Prime Minister of a small island whose clout on the international stage is necessarily limited.  

Muscat has also found a way to reconcile his party's eurosceptic and autarkic past with the present realities of EU membership and globalisation, giving a strong indication that his mindframe is that of exploiting any lucrative opportunities offered by globalisation even at the cost of testing EU waters on issues like the sale of citizenship. 

"Malta is open for business, from everywhere. We are ready to work with whoever is ready to cooperate," Muscat said. The prime minister also said that Malta should shed its colonial mentality and be prepared to take "calculated risks".

In fact over the past year, Muscat has shown more drive to project himself as a 'globalist' Tory than a continental social democrat, a political vision which seeks to build on strategic sectors already cultivated by the previous administration which gave a competitive edge while seeking to defend this turf in an assertive tone. 

Rather than looking at the European Union as a shelter from the worst ravages of globalisation by setting up higher social and environmental standard, Muscat seems to be keener on exploiting the wedge between a sclerotic old world and unrestrained but state-funded capitalism in countries like China, Dubai and Singapore.

Describing the controversial citizenship scheme as an "innovative programme" Muscat said that the one billion euros in funds would be the beginning of a new prosperity, which will belong to us all.

"This is our positive attitude, our vision for the country's future. This is the country I want my children to live in. I, together with all of you here, have the courage to become the best in Europe," he said as he was given a standing ovation by the hundreds of delegates gathered in the Labour headquarters in Hamrun.

Still, such a vision remains problematic. Nor is this model of development ideologically incongruent with left-wing credentials, as it creates a two-tier citizenship which discriminates between rich and poor migrants, on a practical level it makes government spending dependent on income from one particular scheme which creates an illusion of easy money and raises expectations for public spending.  Sustaining such expenditure may be difficult to sustain in the future, either because the EU will legislate to fill the loophole or in the absence of that, simply because other EU member states emulate Malta's example, thus increasing the competition.  Still, such income may buy Muscat valuable time in postponing electorally distasteful decisions. 

In fact, Muscat may well have found a way of defusing a time bomb left in the government's vault by the previous Nationalist government, which promised to reduce income tax on the eve of elections, thus prompting Muscat to make the same commitment. Fully knowing that the PN was heading for defeat, the Nationalists may well have hoped that Muscat would face a fast erosion of popularity as he struggled to make ends meet without increasing the deficit. But instead of increasing taxes or reducing expenditure, Muscat shows a remarkable ability to think outside the box, even if this thinking may have a negative impact on the country's reputation and environment.

Moreover, the citizenship scheme itself does not reward "innovation creativity, enterprise and determination". Instead it crudely rewards wealth as an end to citizenship. 

At best it would be securing funds for measures aimed at cultivating innovation by attracting people which may have no interest whatever in the country and whose major bond to the country would be that of buying property... hardly a sign of innovation.

Significantly absent from the leader's speech is any reference to environmental protection, which is increasingly conflicting with the government's keen interest in reviving the property market. This shows a complete lack of concern for post material values, something which could be symptomatic of Muscat's ideological formation.

The absence of any reference to environmental protection in such a landmark speech may well suggest that Labour's future plans for revenue generation may well conflict with environmental protection. One case in point could be land reclamation, which may involve the sale of public land on a massive scale in a way which may further buy Muscat more time in delaying inevitable reforms.

References to equality remain the only left wing nuance in Muscat's essentially neo-liberal speech. In Muscat's narrative, social justice remains the key to have a just distribution of wealth, the best education possible and first-rate health services. Moreover, thanks to the hard work of Ministers like Evarist Bartolo and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, Muscat's government has been proactive on key sectors like education and social policy. Still, the financing of these services is more than ever dependent on accelerated capitalist development. While Muscat is right in underlining the importance of social mobility as a way to achieve more equality, he seems to be excluding any taxation which serves as a vehicle for a redistribution of income.

Moreover, while advocating 'equality', Muscat remains completely aloof to the rights of immigrants from Africa who form a part of the Maltese working class but are unrepresented by the Labour Party. The citizenship scheme also ignores another segment of the working class, composed of legal foreign workers from non-EU countries.

It is on civil rights for Maltese nationals that Muscat remains on the liberal side of the spectrum, going even beyond electoral expectations, in his bid to introduce a civil union bill which is set to allow adoptions for same sex couples. It also seems that Muscat's reformist zeal will not stop at gay rights.

Hinting at a possible change in the drug laws, possibly opening up the road to decriminalisation, Muscat said that the state should "help and not punish whoever committed a crime for the first time, be reasonable and not come down with an iron fist". 

Ultimately as long as Muscat manages to keep his coalition intact by avoiding any painful decision, Muscat may well continue to occupy territory traditionally occupied by the Nationalist Party.  In fact Muscat's vision remains appealing to liberal-minded centre-right voters who have no qualms on class based inequality.  

For by speaking the same business-friendly language as the Nationalists while liberalising social mores, Muscat may well become a natural home for this category of voters. Moreover Muscat's 'caudillo' image not only helps to keep rank and file Labourites in line but also makes his power more seductive for those who supported the Nationalist Party as the party in power, rather than because of any sense of ideological loyalty. Faced with such a formidable adversary the PN's greatest mistake would be that of retreating to the trenches.

In fact by not even mentioning Simon Busuttil once in his speech, Muscat may be trying to condemn the Opposition to a state of irrelevance. This may well be intended as a way of diminishing the Opposition's gravitas following the government's first major setback following its retreat in the citizenship debate. Still, the general conference has exposed the PN's failure so far to come up with an alternative narrative to Muscat's vision of capitalist development.  The dilemma for the PN remains on how to go beyond a tribal opposition for its own sake by proposing an alternative model of social development, inspired by values which are presently being sidelined by Muscat.