The problems which the Bush administration is currently facing with public opinion in the US stem from the way that the President's (and the Vice-President's) men have been dealing with their administration's Iraqi (mis)adventure as one where what matters is the public's perception of what it was all about, rather than the harsh reality of the situation.
It may sound strange for some, but the truth is that in politics, reality is mostly irrelevant and what counts is the perception of the public.
Closer to home, this tenet is what the Gonzi administration seems to be continually ignoring. For some time, the accepted public perception of the country's economy has been that it is in the doldrums, irrespective of whether this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Prime Minister, who doubles up as Minister of Finance, had to go to great lengths and pains in his Budget Speech last Monday to show that the statistics are giving a different picture.
On the other hand, the job is easier for the Leader of the Opposition, Alfred Sant. Having helped in no small way to build and reinforce the public perception of doom and gloom, his reaction to the Budget Speech was one by which he sought to continue to build on this perception. His 'logic' was simple: Government is quoting statistics that show that the economy is well on the way to recovery. Yet the public perception is that it is not. Therefore Dr Sant conveniently accuses Government of quoting incorrect statistics and insists that "the Prime Minister had not told the truth when speaking about increases in tourism, in manufacturing, investment and employment".
The possibility that it is the perception of John Citizen that could be somewhat astray is not even considered. Bereft of the feel-good factor, John Citizen 'feels' things are not going as well as he wishes or as much as the PM's figures seem to indicate. This is why in Dr Sant's judgment, his 'explanation' of the conundrum that the Prime Minister is facing is more acceptable. It is the face value that matters. If he handles the issue carefully, he could benefit from an incredible advantage in the local political fray.
On the other hand, I sense that Dr Sant has been over-simplistic in his approach. In his enthusiasm to keep on blackening the gloom and doom scenario, he does not think it twice to depict increases in fuel and electricity tariffs resulting from the astronomical increase in the price of oil and oil derivatives in the international market as 'new taxes'. Likewise, he depicts the projected increase in revenue from taxes, resulting from the projected increase in economic activity, as an 'increase' in taxes as if the Budget Speech heralded new taxes or some increase in tax rates.
This is where he may be overdoing it and where people with a modicum of common sense should start to see through his strategy.
Incidentally, it was quite interesting to hear Dr Sant criticising the Gonzi administration as "a laptop-oriented and incompetent government", considering that this is practically the same criticism that was levelled at his administration by the then PN Opposition, after the 1998 Budget was announced - even though the laptop is now substituting the calculator of eight years ago! The enormous difference between Dr Sant's 1998 Budget and the 2006 Budget announced on Monday, as well as in the public's perception of the two exercises, should have led him to be more careful; apart from the fact that, in this case, his lack of originality is striking!
The truth is that were it not for the increases in fuel prices and in water and electricity tariffs proclaimed a week before Budget Day, the 2006 Budget announced on Monday would have been welcomed by the great majority of the Maltese.
The continually escalating price of oil - for which Dr Gonzi can hardly be blamed - has negatively affected not only Malta's economic performance but also that of those European countries which are our major trading partners, making matters even worse. Lady Luck, perhaps, is smiling favourably on Dr Sant more than at Dr Gonzi.
Here again, Dr Sant - abetted by the GWU - has played a deft card, by insisting that the 50c weekly increase given one year in advance over and above the normal cost of living allowance (COLA) is not enough to compensate for the extra expenses every family will have to fork out due to increases in fuel, water and electricity.
Compare this with Edward Scicluna's stand in an interview in The Times last Monday when he held that "wage compensation at this stage could be a recipe for disaster". From the strictly economic aspect, Professor Scicluna is completely correct. Yet the government ended up choosing to go half-way by giving some compensation. But John Citizen could not be bothered by the vagaries of economic theory that he does not fathom or understand and Dr Sant has no qualms capitalising on his perceptions!
With less than three years before the next general election, the 2006 Budget should have signalled a turning point in the public's perception of the Gonzi administration. It is still too early for one to say whether this has been achieved.
In the meantime, there is no doubt that Dr Sant is leaving no stone unturned in his pursuit to reinforce the public's negative perception of the government's economic performance - that perception that is finally what really matters, whether or not the hard facts are actually different.
micfal@maltanet.net