[ANALYSIS] Muscat: the withdrawal method

One particular characteristic which marks Joseph Muscat’s political demeanour is his flexibility, something which makes him the antithesis of the stubborn Lawrence Gonzi, who often persisted in what he believed to be right despite popular opposition, only to withdraw (as was the case with the MP salary issue) when public opinion was already formed.

Even before the election Muscat was flexible enough to ditch his own deputy leader when his dismal performance in a TV debate risked undermining the extent of his near certain victory.

Faced with an injunction by the European Court of Human Rights, Muscat aborted push back plans and in the face of liberal anxieties on his migration policies, he gradually toned down his statements to the extent that government exponents now openly speak about integration.

Faced with surveys showing massive opposition to the new cash for citizenship scheme, he immediately removed the secrecy clause, which was undoubtedly the most unpopular aspect of the bill. 

Moreover, faced with the possibility of an infringement procedure by the EU, he withdraw again, accepting a nominal residency clause – something which he turned in his favour by securing EU approval of what remained, essentially a money spinning exercise.

Muscat’s decision to stop the autumn season following a spate of illegal poaching shows his response to a growing perception that he is in cahoots with the hunting lobby.

And faced with mounting criticism that his proposal to postpone next year’s local elections to 2019 was intended to accommodate calls by the hunting lobby for a stand-alone referendum on Spring hunting, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici has now announced that only the 2017 elections will be postponed to 2019.

The decision came in the wake of Muscat’s decision to stop the autumn season following a spate of illegal poaching that culminated in the shooting of a stork. Once again Muscat was responding to a growing perception that Muscat was in cahoots with the hunting lobby.

One major drawback of this strategy is that it risks undermining Muscat’s reputation as a principled decision maker and strengthen the perception that he is a vain leader who is constantly reacting to what the media and opinion polls say about him. Moreover by toying with dangerous concepts like pushbacks, Muscat has legitimised political positions, which may return to haunt him now that he has disowned them.

Yet so far Muscat’s flexibility has proved to be one of his most valuable political assets in neutralising the opposition.

Neutralising the opposition

Moreover on all these issues, by withdrawing and taking credit for his flexibility, Muscat has managed to deny the opposition a rallying cry. 

One may argue that any damage to Labour resulting from these issues was self inflicted as it was Muscat who endorsed push backs, voted for the secrecy clause in the citizenship scheme in parliament, relaxed hunting regulations to appease hunters and contemplated the postponement of the 2015 local elections to 2019. 

In all four cases Muscat showed an audacity rarely seen in the Maltese political scene. In all these Muscat seemed to see himself as a Dom Mintoff. 

But unlike Mintoff in all these cases Muscat avoided confrontation and letting the opposition capitalise on these issues by turning them into its own battle cries.

On citizenship, Muscat managed to disorient the opposition completely following EU agreement

From day one Muscat also left space for manoeuvre by initiating a public consultation on the initial proposal to postpone both the 2015 and 2017 elections. This gave Muscat valuable time to test the waters.  

Moreover Muscat also banked on the opposition pressing on with the attack, ignoring the compromise proposed by the government.

For example on the citizenship issue, Muscat managed to disorient the opposition completely following the agreement he reached with the European Union. 

By pressing on with legitimate criticism after the deal was reached, it was the opposition which appeared to be extremist and not working in the national interest.

In the case of the latest U-turn, that on next year’s local elections, Simon Busuttil has shown greater political tact.

As soon as Muscat suggested that a compromise was in the offing, Busuttil upped the ante to give the impression that the government was withdrawing because of pressure by the opposition. Busuttil’s unlikely comparison between Muscat’s Malta and Communist China was clearly meant to up the ante.

Muscat has managed to avoid local elections due in 2017, saving himself from Lawrence Gonzi’s predicament when he had to face a long electoral campaign stretching from local elections in 2012 to general elections in 2013

But following the government’s partial U-turn Busuttil changed tack, welcoming the government’s decision by attributing it to his party’s principled opposition. 

In this sense Busuttil resisted the temptation to press on by opposing the postponement of the distant 2017 elections to 2019.

Still awkwardly, despite his political retreat, Muscat has managed to emerge from the latest skirmish unblemished. For Muscat was quite in synch with popular opinion, which has lost its appetite for annual elections. This may in itself be a negative omen, for electoral fatigue may well undermine democracy.

A MaltaToday survey showed a relative majority in favour of postponing elections. Yet Muscat realised that with the spring hunting referendum scheduled for next year, it would have been hard to explain why local elections were not being held in conjunction with the same referendum. In fact the same MaltaToday survey showed 59% agreeing with holding the referendum and local elections next year.

The end result of this was that Muscat has managed to avoid local elections due in 2017, saving himself from Lawrence Gonzi’s predicament when he had to face a long electoral campaign stretching from local elections in 2012 to general elections in 2013.

The casualty: Local government?

With even the Greens agreeing to the postponement of the 2017 local elections to 2019 and the PN avoiding the risk of appearing too negative on this issue, the Maltese electoral calendar has been streamlined to make life easier for the party in office.

From 2015 onwards local elections will always be overshadowed by nationwide European elections, in which political parties show very little interest in local issues.

Surely past local elections were often boring affairs with political leaders repeating the same message over and over again while visiting different localities. 

The risk now is that local elections will be further relegated to an appendage of the MEP elections, which have already degenerated into a confirmation test for any newly elected government.

The compromise proposed by the government ensures that incumbent governments will not be facing any mid term tests except for one held one year after being elected or re-elected to power. 

Probably MEP elections will coincide with the government’s honeymoon period.

In this sense citizens will lose the chance to send a message to those in power through elections further down the life of the legislature. 

On its own this may reduce electoral pressures on governments by supporters bent on being rewarded but it could also encourage governments to ignore voters in the time between elections.

Lumping local elections into a single nation wide election, which does not coincide  with either the MEP or the national election could be more conducive to a debate on local issues. 

Yet even in this case as happens in the rest of Europe, local elections will still be seen as a popularity test for governments and oppositions.

Another possibility is that of having the 68 local elections interspersed through the entire five-year legislature in a way that each election will be primarily a local one. Reforms like the direct election of the mayor and granting councils the power to raise money through local taxes or levies may also go a long way in restoring interest in local elections. 

In fact the most interesting aspect of the debate on the postponement of local elections, was the lack of debate on the impact of election dates on local government.