An open question

They say a government's first 100 days are enough to tell you what the next electoral battle will look like. So will Gonzi-Sant 2008 resemble Major-Kinnock 1992 or Major-Blair 1997? To me this is still an open question.

I know there are multiple objections to the question itself. Lawrence Gonzi is well up to the job of Prime Minister, unlike John Major. Eddie Fenech Adami was no Margaret Thatcher, either in his politics or in the way he exited. And Alfred Sant in 2008 cannot be Mr Blair in 1997 - if he were to resemble anyone, it would have to be Neil Kinnock, a Labour leader who did so much to reform his party but who was not personally liked enough by voters.

Objections accepted. But analogies are worth drawing if they help clarify issues. And this analogy helps clarify what kind of credibility will be at stake in 2008.

In 1992, the Tories had been in power for over 12 years. People could still remember, faintly, the fragile, squabbling Labour government of 1979 (go on, join the dots). Of course, the Tories were very unpopular, too. But a new Prime Minister, appointed by his own party only 15 months before, had undone some of the unpopular things that his own party had done in office. So in 1992, voters saw the election as a contest between a Labour leader they did not fully trust and a Tory leader to whom they wanted to give a chance to put his own stamp on government.

By 1997, Mr Major had lost all credibility as Prime Minister, was surrounded by accusations of sleaze and entangled in the rivalries within his Cabinet. His government had actually managed to turn the economy around - there was wide recognition that Ken Clarke, his Chancellor, was one of the best Finance Ministers since WWII - but the feel-good factor had yet to make itself felt.

In 1997, voters saw no distinction between John Major and his party. They were fed up of both. And they would have voted for any Labour leader. As it happens they got Mr Blair, who promised changes in attitude, though few changes in policy.

Back to Dr Gonzi. In 2008, will voters be prepared to give him a chance to grow more into his own? Or will they lump him together with everything they dislike about the PN today and accept any replacement almost on principle?

There are two reasons why these are open questions. One is that what Malta might face in 2008 is a fudge between the two UK elections: Mr Major of 1997 versus Mr Kinnock of 1992. That is, a Prime Minister handicapped by his party versus an opposition party handicapped by its leader.

The other reason is that Dr Gonzi has been fudging himself, so far. The transition from Dr Fenech Adami's government is still under way. Dr Gonzi fudged his initial choice of Cabinet - retaining most people while coordinating them in his way. And he cannot take full credit for certain changes - on the Mnajdra landfill issue, or for closer scrutiny of government spending - because he bears Cabinet responsibility for the situation he has to deal with, even if it does not bear his stamp.

In fact, he is fudging the two modules of leadership he followed when Deputy Prime Minister. Internally, with his colleagues (and not just in the John Dalli case) he is behaving in the decisive way that he followed as Minister of Social Policy. Externally, speaking as Prime Minister to the country, he is still blurred in the public mind with the previous government - the way he was blurred, as Deputy Prime Minister, with Prime Minister Fenech Adami.

The main reason for the blur is that he has so far proposed no vision of his own. A pro-active policy of gender equality is not a vision. He speaks primarily as Minister of Finance, spotting encouraging economic indicators here and there. Some of his aides look forward to delivering more recreational facilities for Maltese families, better pre-schooling to combat inequality and, in general, an economic policy that is family-friendly.

All these things are important. If accomplished, they would make of Dr Gonzi a decent Prime Minister, perhaps enough to make the majority vote him in again in 2008 the way they did with Mr Major in 1992. But on their own they do not give him the credibility of a strategist whose Malta is the one we want to belong to. And after all, is Mr Major (1992) the figure that Dr Gonzi should aspire to be?