Writing in The Malta Independent on Sunday last week, editor-turned-columnist Stephen Calleja, foresaw that a "sea of red" was to take over Żabbar. He was referring to the demonstration planned by the Labour Party later that afternoon.
For Calleja this was to be yet another show of force to please the militants within the party. Because - according to him - these are the diehard Labour supporters who "enjoy going to these meetings with their torċa flags and gold-plated ċpiepet to shout obscenities at the government".
Perhaps subconsciously - Calleja was treating us to the stereotypical description of the Labour supporter. Besides the obligatory torċa flag and bright red tracksuit, the typical Labour supporter should be wearing a wife-beater vest accompanied by his blowsy, overweight wife sporting garish costume jewellery. And continuing on the stereotypical identikit portrait of your average Labour voter, the men would be largely unemployed layabouts whiling away the time of day in the każin while their wives sang hosannas to the leader at the weekly coffee morning.
Stereotypes are amusing, of course, but there's no getting away from the fact that they're just simplified descriptions of people for those whose minds can't seem to cope with a more in-depth but complex analysis of events. In this particular case, Calleja's greatly anticipated stereotypes failed to turn up at the demonstration - or at least there was little photographic evidence of it.
No harridans straining against their red polyester V-necks were caught on film. The semi-expected orgy of destruction and pillaging by the menfolk failed to materialise. By all accounts - or at least the ones I read - the protest was a bit of a muted affair with Maltese and EU flags outnumbering the flaming torch. Żabbar was not submerged in a sea of scarlet scarves - loads of people turned up kitted out in various shades of blue.
Instead of the rabble-rousing which critics were waiting for, Joseph Muscat gave a rather dry speech outlining his proposals for the upcoming budget. The points he made could easily have been contained in a press release. He chose to deliver them to a crowd which may have been expecting something with a little more oomph. Following the demonstration, everybody trickled back home (perhaps offloading those dratted EU flags and sinking back into red flannel pyjamas in relief), leaving Nationalist-leaning commentators in a fix.
Their pre-prepared columns about frenzied Labour supporters hurling abuse at the Prime Minister had to be scrapped. Their not-so-veiled warnings about the possibility of violence seemed melodramatic in the light of the humdrum non-happening in Żabbar.
The one criticism which they could still level at Muscat was that he was imitating successful PN leaders, that he was morphing into a Nationalist. There is an element of truth to this charge. Muscat borrows trademark phrases used by Eddie Fenech Adami. His taking to the streets in national protests also hark back to the early days of Fenech Adami's time as Leader of the Opposition. Muscat is acting like a magpie, picking on the Nationalist strategies which worked and making them his own.
The focus of all attention on the party leader - as with the GonziPN model - seems to have been taken on over at the Labour Party. There's not much of the team set-up in evidence publicity-wise, as all seems to revolve round the persona of the leader. MuscatPL is the answer to GonziPN it would seem. The one notable difference which makes Muscat stand out from both his predecessor and the Prime Minister, is his attitude to criticism.
He does not bristle, sulk or act defensively when criticised. He does not ignore criticism and sail blithely on, assuming people will come round at some point in the future. Muscat takes note of criticism and - very often - reacts by adopting his critics' suggestions, deflating them in the process. So, if the PL was (quite rightly) getting flak because of the clause enabling dissenting MEPs to be fined, that clause was scrapped. If Jason Micallef was a reminder of an electoral defeat, Muscat cut him loose. If he was accused of failing to come up with proposals, he cobbled some together for the demonstration.
It may very well be argued that his proposals are not well-thought out solutions, and that they are insubstantial as is his way of doing politics. His "something old, something new, something blue" strategy may be criticised for being a derivative take of his opponents' moves. Muscat's denigrators will also insist that his sanitising of the PL's appearance, the stage management of public events, and an obsession with perception, all point towards a politician who is big on spin but not on substance.
They miss the irony of the situation - where Muscat is being criticised for taking on Nationalist traits and banking on them to get elected. Say what you will, but for the duration of the last legislature and some time before that, the Nationalist government has been flailing around seeking some form of direction after the EU dream.
It has not galvanised the country into action or unity. Few - if any - capital projects have been completed on time. The PN conceals its disregard for many EU rules and directives, with polished public relations strategies. This formula was successful enough to swing the last election its way. Why should Nationalists be irked that Labour is adopting that particular strategy? It's the electorate which is despairing because of the never-ending cycle of spin-based politics.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt