Joseph II - the real consequences of love

The enemies of Joseph Muscat have uploaded his maiden speech on Youtube. They're playing into his hands, for there was a cunning plan behind that dog's dinner. Things now can only get better, and it is in this vein that the following is intended. First, in order to decide whether or not the delegates made the right choice, we need to ask two questions: Is Muscat electable? And, does he have what it takes to be a decent Prime Minister?

I have no doubt he is electable. It is clear that the man can sell himself, which is why he rose so swiftly and also why he won such a high number of votes in the MEP elections.

So far so good, both were instances of preaching to the converted. But, can he sell himself to a broader market? I think so. Many have discussed the fairness of his 'Schulz strategy', but the point is that - I think - he somehow managed to convince the chairman of the Party of European Socialists to make the trip south and root for him.

Muscat is also very good on television, which will work in his favour. Plus, provided he doesn't go overboard and seem ham - but his advisers will hopefully see to that - his talk of achievement, success, and such, will strike a chord with young and especially first-time voters, of whom there will be very many come 2013.

Muscat would probably also make a decent enough prime minister. He does have some odd notions, mind you, but then the age of the enlightened politician is over. What one needs nowadays is a combination of image, to keep one in power, and the readiness to listen to the real experts. Muscat may be a tad self-important, but he really doesn't come across as arrogant and hard-headed. This, in combination with his acceptable image, may well make him a successful man of his times. Politics has changed since Mintoff.

Second, a question which many people (mostly Nationalist 'floaters') are asking is: Can Muscat overcome the 'party machine' that put him there in the first place? The answer is important because it will determine whether or not the promised 'new political season' will turn out to be more of the same.

There are two things to be said here. First, I am not entirely convinced that the said machine exists. People talk about it and describe its various evil doings. It presumably inhabits fiery subterranean chambers at Mile End, and is vulnerable only to the powers of George Abela, who by now would have cast it into a herd of pigs. It is real, impregnable, and behind Labour's defeat(s). And yet, I have never met anyone who can name a single human cog of this machine, let alone the architect. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, you may spend a lifetime in the pursuit of Mrs Party Machine, but you will never catch up with her. She is a myth. Let us say, however - in spite of the evidence - that the machine exists and threatens to hold Muscat hostage. Well, it still wouldn't manage, simply because the election of a political leader signifies a key power shift.

The minute the delegates start cheering, the new leader is no longer the property of the 'party machine' and suddenly draws for his power on the thousands of party members and sympathisers out there. When a new Pope is elected, he leaves the secretive ambience of the Sistine Chapel (a rather nice place to put a machine) and connects with the people on St Peter's Square. He is now theirs, and no amount of scheming cardinals can touch him - even though they gave him power in the first place.

Muscat may have been put there by sinister forces (if you must believe that), but his new power base now means that he is no longer accountable to those forces. So, yes, he could overcome the party machine, if it existed.

Third, can he bin the legacy of talking about how horrid the past was, how bright the present is, and how we owe it all to socialism? There are a million reasons why this talk is counterproductive. For one, the 'son of farmers made good' tune doesn't really resonate any longer; farmers today are well respected, as they should be, and they quite likely park their tractors next to their gleaming Mercs. (In any case, people don't like being reminded of humble roots.)

Further, the obsession with Labour's past, which he has promised to cultivate, makes us all very suspicious, for the simple reason that there are two categories of people who harp constantly about the past.

If they write it, they are called historians; if they re-write it, they are called politicians. I honestly don't see why this attachment-to-roots storyline is necessary anyway. Lawrence Gonzi calls himself a 'nationalist' yet I have never heard him mention religio et patria or declare his keenness to shed his blood for the flag. That nonsense is reserved for the party anthem, which is just a merry tune.

The question is whether or not Joseph Muscat will deliver, if not a new political season, at least some decent politics. The answer to that is still very far away, and it would be a real shame to bring the man down before he can even begin to contemplate it.

mafalzon@hotmail.com