[ANALYSIS] Muscat buying time, or one step closer to action on Panama?

During Monday’s no confidence debate, MPs from  both sides stuck to a well rehearsed script in which most Labour MPs ignored the elephant in the room singing a song to Labour’s record in office while the opposition failed to exploit any cracks on the government’s side. But the few deviations from the script may well point to an inevitable outcome; that which leads to Mizzi’s and Schembri’s resignations.

Clearly the Labour MPs exploited the major weakness of the opposition’s motion of no confidence in the entire government; that it deflected the focus from Konrad Mizzi’s and Keith Schembri’s companies in Panama and gave the government MPs the opportunity to sing a song to Labour’s record in office.  Yet by refraining to speak on Panamagate, most Labour MPs sounded out of synch with the popular mood.  The debate itself was a reminder to the PM that his government cannot operate in serenity as long as he is constantly expected to answer for Konrad Mizzi’s and Keith Schembri’s Panama offshore companies.

Clearly the opposition would have scored more points had it presented a motion of no confidence in Mizzi.  Such a step would have seriously embarrassed government MPs who believe that Mizzi should resign but would never dream of challenging Muscat, an opportunity now seized by independent MP Marlene Farrugia, who once again managed to take centre stage, stealing the thunder from PN MPs and who will now be presenting her own no confidence motion in Mizzi.   

Ironically it was the few references to Panama from the government’s benches, in the remarks of Evarist Bartolo, Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minister, which may offer a glimpse of things to come.

Evarist Bartolo, who has already declared his firm belief that Konrad Mizzi should resign from the government, refrained from confronting the embattled minister by making a similar call during the debate.  Yet his remark that while legality is important “correctness is crucial too” and that the government needs to win not just the vote in parliament but the people’s trust, set the stage for the speeches made by Konrad Mizzi himself and the Prime Minister.

In some ways the latter two speeches were reminiscent of what happened in the PL’s general conference, with one notable exception: that in parliament Mizzi did not refer to his readiness to accept any decision the Prime Minister may take in his regard.

Unlike Spanish industry minister José Manuel Soria, who resigned last week after being mentioned in the Panama leaks for holding a company in Panama before becoming Minister, Mizzi’s priority seems to be that of defending his name. While Mizzi was completely in denial, protesting against the trial by media albeit describing his choice of Panama as “ill conceived” (amidst revelations that he had approached nine banks to open an account for his company in Panama), the PM registered his agreement with Bartolo’s remark on correctness being as important as legality while insisting that “action” is inevitable. 

“I took note of Konrad Mizzi’s explanation that he had done nothing illegal but we have to understand that people expect better from us,” Muscat declared after stating his agreement with Bartolo, thus underlining the fact that Mizzi has betrayed the people’s expectations. This may clearly indicate that the PM is now closer to taking a decisive action. Another indication is that apart from Bartolo, Labour MPs openly critical of Mizzi largely failed to make any reference to Panamagate in the debate. Is this an indication of a pact to hold fire but which would see Mizzi fail to secure the loyalty of senior Labour MPs?

The problem for Muscat is why procrastinate further on an issue where everything revolves around one basic act of political incorrectness: that of opening an account in Panama while serving in office?  There are two possible answers to this: either the PM is buying time to test the attention span of public opinion on this issue, hoping that the pressure will eventually cool down, enabling him to consider other options other than Mizzi’s and Schembri’s resignation, or he simply wants to take the inevitable action (that of asking Mizzi and Schembri to resign) without appearing to have succumbed to the opposition’s pressure.

He may well be hoping to conclude the whole matter before rallying supporters on May 1, when he may hope in a rebound. What is sure is that it is unclear whether Muscat is still considering any alternative options apart from asking Mizzi and Schembri to resign. On his part Simon Busuttil has clearly managed to keep the heat on Muscat and pounced on the government’s good governance deficit, but now he runs the risk of sounding repetitive, making the same argument all over again, in two demonstrations and than in parliament.

Perhaps it may well be Muscat’s tactic to make Busuttil sound divisive and one-track minded, before he takes the inevitable decisions, which he will spin as being based on rational deliberation rather than gut.   

The question now is will Muscat wait for the temperature to cool down or will he act to resolve his greatest problem since being elected in 2013? And how can Busuttil keep up the heat on Panamagate if Muscat finally acts to defuse the time bomb by forcing his closest two collaborators to resign? And after eight weeks of procrastination, is he still in time to recover from the dent in trust created by Panamagate?