Gonzi's moment of decision

For the last five years, Lawrence Gonzi has been a modular leader. He has followed one module of leadership as deputy prime minister, another as minister. For five years it has been possible to behave as though these were two separate spheres of politics. But now we approach the moment where the separation cannot be sustained: he must choose one module over the other.

As deputy prime minister, Dr Gonzi has strenuously sought not to overstep his role. He has been anxious not to be seen to think of himself as the designate leader. It was an attitude born partly out of realism - he was not, in fact, anointed successor. There was also an element of fiction, however, given the emphatic way he had won the contest for the deputy leadership.

From this attitude there followed a style of leadership that draws its legitimacy by blurring the deputy with the prime minister. The deputy is only the custodian, he only fills in. Dr Gonzi has no doubt been helped by the perception that he is of the same political mould as Eddie Fenech Adami - displaying the same blend of "religiosity" and political centrism as no other politician of Dr Gonzi's generation does.

As minister of social policy, however, Dr Gonzi has been a different kind of leader. The challenges facing his ministry are primarily two: how to adapt a social policy designed for a wealthier demography to our own cash-strapped predicament; and how to design a social policy for our culturally diverse times. People who have had to work with Dr Gonzi speak of a man who tackles these problems with a distinctive energy.

They speak of a man who submits proposals to detailed interrogation and quick decisions. His ministry has a good completion rate. Over the last four years it has cut social benefit fraud by Lm20 million - an achievement that affected thousands of families while his party was going into an election, and remarkably one obtained relatively quietly, without any populist witch-hunt for "scroungers".

In the public perception, however, it is the man who is blurred with his leader who figures largely. Most people are able to say what Louis Galea stands for: he has been a relentless left-of-centre institution builder whether in charge of social policy, home affairs, health or education. Austin Gatt and John Dalli almost daily flaunt their difference from Dr Fenech Adami, leaving people in no doubt about what they stand for, either. But Dr Gonzi?

His ministry's main slogan - "an inclusive society" - feeds a public image of a reliably humanitarian politician with, as they say, a social conscience. But its fuzziness also feeds the image of a politician who is not associated with any policy that is truly his own.

This fuzziness is partly a disadvantage of office - at least according to the deputy PM module he has followed. I speculate that it also is the result of calculation. While others had to assert their interest in the party leadership, his role as deputy prime minister allowed him to remain silent, rising above the fray, a man allied with no one and embracing everyone, his semi-detached attitude to the most powerful office qualifying him as worthier of it.

In any case, until now he has been able to live with the fuzziness. But not any more.

The PM has publicly commented on his approaching 70th birthday so often that clearly he considers it to be a political milestone, not just a personal one. We should not be surprised if the official birthday celebration comes with an announcement of the date of when he intends to step down. If so, that announcement will come at the end of the first week of February.

At that stage, if not already now, Dr Gonzi will have to choose one, and only one, module of leadership that reflects what he is for: the module that primarily suggests continuity - managerial, reliable, competent, fair, above the fray, but above all, continuity; or the module of a leader with a distinctive policy, who is not afraid to promote the people most able to realise it, and to demote those who will obstruct it.

Either module might, perhaps, be enough to get him elected leader of the party. But they are not equally good for governing the country. The majority of people want a change in the style of government. If all they could have were a change of personnel, then at the next election they would certainly opt for Charles Mangion and Michael Falzon, who also suggest managerial competence and fairness without too much of a break with the present.

So Dr Gonzi's moment of decision has come. Can he calibrate correctly the amount of steel, vision and ruthlessness that he needs to show? For us observers this is merely a drama. For him it is the moment of his making or unmaking.