Not that I personally care very much, but Lawrence Gonzi is still in time to save the Nationalist Party from certain defeat at the next election. That is to say, he has about five minutes left to get his folks to cut the nonsense about conscience, moral decadence and such and do their duty in Parliament instead.

People like Edwin Vassallo need to be told that they’re playing a very mad game indeed, and that we’re neither impressed nor amused by their histrionics. Well-intentioned though they may be, they’re a textbook case of political suicide. For at least two reasons.

The first is that people have had quite enough of the divorce business. The hope was that yesterday week’s vote would consign the family-values rhetoric to the unrecyclable-waste bin and render the Parliamentary bit procedural. We quite simply don’t want to hear anything more about the ‘divorcist mentality’ and so on. All we want is divorcelegislation, and fast.

I’m saying this because there’s a palpable and growing sense of irritation, anger even, at the way things are turning out. This applies especially to what we might loosely call the liberal-minded type, which also happens to be one of theelements that has kept the PN in power for as long as many of us can remember.

The second reason has to do with trust. The party built by Eddie Fenech Adami may have had its scores of failings but it was premised on an unspoken agreement that no amount of values or conservatism would ever be allowed to get in the way of practical considerations.

People knew that a Nationalist government would ultimately let them live as they chose. It would also not betray the trust they lent it so persistently at the polls.

That feeling is now beginning to collapse. A new type of party person is emerging who will never compromise on their dogma, no matter what the majority say. In other words a class of ideologues rather than politicians, and holding rather pathetic and obsolete ideologies at that.

Electorates will never trust ideologues, simply because they know that the kind is prone to riding roughshod over the popular will and causing misery in the process. Come next election, no amount of projects by Piano will do the job. Rather, the trick is to be practical and respect the people’s choice.

Which brings me to JosephMuscat who has somehow managed to position himself fairly convincingly as one of the big winners (for many, the winner) of the day. No surprises there, it’s in keeping with his record of being in the right place at the right time.

The reason why I and many others underestimated the man is that there are in fact two Joseph Muscats.

The first is him of the infamous “inħobbkom” (I love you) speech of three years ago and of a subsequent string of formulaic and vacant performances. That first speech was a columnist’s dream and one that I entertained with relish.

Muscat really doesn’t do ‘vision’ (whatever that means) very well. His ‘landmark’ speeches are at best so much hot air. I have in mind his references to ‘tribalism’, ‘moderate and progressive’ politics, and such.At worst, as in the case of therecent migration situation, his lack of statesmanship is positivelynauseating.

But that’s not the full story. Nor is it necessarily such an important part of it. I for one tend to run a mile from vision-type schemes, no matter how noble and philosophically profound they might be, and prefer instead the down-to-earth practical sort.

The latter happens to be Muscat’s best-selling department. People who know him well will tell you that he is a good listener, that he has no use for grudges which get in the way of advantage, and that he can work his way round obstacles better than a slalom Olympian.

Muscat, in other words, seems to have bundles of what we might call practical intelligence. The closest Maltese equivalent I can think of is ‘jilħaqlu’ which means ‘witty’ but not witty in the quotable-Wilde sense.

Rather, this wit comes with flexibility, an eye for an opportunity, and a feet-on-the-ground sort of enterprise. It is a quality and a way of doing things which is not uncommon in Malta, I dare say especially in the villages.

Whether or not it is historically linked to frugal livelihoods and a distant state is anybody’s guess, but that’s beside the point here.

I’d argue that despite its cons (notions of the limited good for example, and a competitiveness that can be cut-throat) practical intelligence can be a major asset.

It is probably one of the reasons why the Maltese economy and global recession don’t seem to mix very well.

It also explains why there are so many people whose level of education is basic but who live in villas, spend their weekends in little empires in the countryside, and have two Mercs parked in the garage.

I was livid at the way Muscat failed to commit his party in favour of divorce. I also thought it was foolish of him to keep harping on the “near impossibility” of a positive outcome. But I was wrong: He had it worked out quite brilliantly.

Labour’s ‘neutrality’ meant that Nationalist voters who were in favour of divorce were not unduly put off. At the same time Labour voters knew all along which vote their party favoured. Muscat also played the religion card rather well, going on about conscience and spiritual reflection and all. Fluff aplenty some might say.

But it worked, and Muscat emerged the champion of the day. It would be churlish to bash him for his opportunism. Fact is he contributed, albeit in a circuitous way, to a good day for social justice.

New Parliament, new Prime Minister. Now that’s one for practical intelligence to crack.

mafalzon@hotmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.