A Major mistake to make?

Some people have a tendency to describe politics as a science, but anyone who has anything to do with it – which includes those, like us, who are on the outside looking in – know it rarely plays out that way.

Sure, there are parallels to be drawn, lessons from the mistakes of others to be learnt, and certain dos and don’ts.

But there are variables that make it as unpredictable, and at rare moments as exciting, as a Premier League football match. Politics has more than its fair share of last-minute penalties and own-goals that change the landscape almost in a matter of minutes.

When Lawrence Gonzi announced last Sunday that he would submit himself to a leadership contest (in which he will be the only candidate), comparisons were drawn with former British Prime Minister John Major.

There are certainly similarities: Mr Major succeeded a leader who had been at the helm for a long time and had achieved legendary status; he became prime minister during the course of a legislature; he scraped his first general election as leader; and he called a leadership election due to internal divisions within his own party.

But there are also key distinctions which it would be foolish to overlook. Mr Major was to a large extent a compromise candidate in a party which had ousted its leader (Margaret Thatcher). Dr Gonzi, on the other hand, was the overwhelming choice of the Nationalist Party – after Eddie Fenech Adami decided it was time to leave the stage – and the driving force behind the PN’s 2008 election victory.

More important, however, is the divergence when it comes to the cause of the two leaders’ internal strife. The opposition to Mr Major from Tory MPs was largely due to a fundamental ideological difference within the party, particularly on Europe. This chasm dogged the Conservatives for years, and to an extent still does.

Dr Gonzi is not facing an ideological battle. Quite the contrary, his backbenchers’ discontent – not least Franco Debono’s – has been largely due to individual and personal issues. This makes the rifts much less difficult to heal than the ones faced by Mr Major.

People will question whether the Prime Minister was right to submit himself to a leadership election. Critics will argue it is facile and, on the face of it, they are right.

However, on deeper analysis it could be a shrewd political move. For the following reason: if taking this course, along with an admission by Dr Gonzi that mistakes have been made by his government, is enough to satisfy Dr Debono – whose actions have been the direct cause of this leadership ‘election’ – that the Prime Minister has taken on board his criticism, then it could be the key to rapprochement.

Of course, that would only be meaningful if there is a clear guarantee that it will hold long-term. And in the absence of a clear declaration of support by the backbench MP, an election should be called.

Whether any of this means that Dr Gonzi will win the next election – or suffer a crushing defeat at the polls like Mr Major – remains to be seen.

Roamer RIP

John Micallef did everything he could to avoid publicity, which is why he felt comfortable writing under the ‘Roamer’ pen-name for the best part of four decades.

Mr Micallef staunchly defended what he believed in. And even if one did not agree with what he wrote, few could help admiring the eloquence with which he wrote it.

After suffering a recent recurrence of cancer, he suddenly and quite unexpectedly succumbed last Monday.

He made the column his own after taking over what had previously been a collaborative effort some 40 years ago. As such we feel it would be inappropriate for it to out-live him.

G.K. Chesterton, of whom Roamer was a dedicated follower, wrote that “every man is dignified when he is dead”. That may be true. But John Micallef was equally dignified in life.