It may sound unkind but no less truthful to state that Simon Busuttil has hardly made any impression on the electorate, the media or even the Nationalist Party. He hasn’t caused a ripple in the local scene, let alone made any waves or Joseph Muscat-style earthquakes. Barring his weekly festa outings – flanked by the photogenic Kristy Debono and Tonio Fenech – Busuttil’s presence is not very much in evidence in the local political scene. He is the invisible man of Maltese politics.
He wafts around and is a regular apparition besides those nougat kiosks, but other than that, he hasn’t stamped his impression in any significant manner. There hasn’t been a single memorable speech which could stir up some sparks in the souls of those listening to him. You would be hard pressed to pin down any defining moment when Busuttil showed us what he was about or when he gave a clear indication of the way in which he intended to lead the party to make it electable again. In fact, it’s rather difficult to figure out what he stands for.
He hasn’t told us if he’s going to break from the past, if he’s going to attempt some Labour-like big tent approach or whether he’s going to try something else. Busuttil hasn’t taken a clear stand on some very important issues. Being hamstrung by past utterances and PN policies, Busuttil has had to resort to very anodyne neither-here-nor-there positions.
Take spring hunting, for example. Instead of jumping at this opportunity to finally settle this issue once and for all and do away with this unsustainable practice, Busuttil hems and haws and says it would be contradictory of him to support a referendum banning spring hunting when the Nationalist government had fought for hunters in the EU in line with its promise to them.
I wonder where that gets him – or the Nationalist Party. He’s not winning any brownie points from the hunters who have long been ensconced in the Labour camp. Nor is Busuttil going to gain the support of that considerable segment of the population which is convinced that spring hunting should go. Even if it wasn’t a vote-catching or vote-losing strategy, supporting such a move would be the right thing to do.
On other issues, Busuttil gives the impression that he only nails his colours to the mast when it’s safe to do so and when controversies have been settled by other authorities. When it came to the Armier shanty town, for example, Busuttil said that the court judgement ordering the demolition of 12 caravans should be respected. He could hardly do otherwise though. That would be advocating anarchy and lawlessness.
Simon Busuttil has hardly made any impression on the electorate, the media or even the Nationalist Party
And then he stated the obvious by saying the PN was not bound by any agreement signed in the past with the squatter’s lobby. Again – that’s a no-brainer – because one cannot agree to condone illegality. But what’s more to the point here was that Busuttil pronounced himself only after the court judgment and in the wake of widespread public approval of the fact that there was at least one authority – the courts – which had condemned the abusive takeover of public land.
This sitting-on-the-fence is also evident when it comes to party financing. In a recent interview, Busuttil said the party was “committed” to publishing its accounts, but no timeframe for this was indicated. So much for transparency.
We aren’t even told where Busuttil’s PN stands on state funding of political parties. He says there has been no decision as to whether the PN would lobby for an increase to the current state subsidy of €200,000 which is given to the PN and the PL.
On other issues too, the PN leader comes late to the party. There was a vigorous (and correct) condemnation of Muscat’s pushback ploy, but not a whisper of an apology for the forced repatriation of Eritrean refugees which happened under a Nationalist administration.
Now you may say it is early days and that Busuttil has not had enough time to make an impression. He has taken over the party when it is at an all-time low, being debt-ridden and with supporters feeling dejected at the way their party has been laid low.
This may be true, but the sooner Busuttil gets off the fence and away from the festas and starts giving some clear pointers as to where the PN stands, the better it will be.
Perhaps he should heed the criticism aimed at another invisible man – Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party in Britain. Miliband is often described as being bland and policy-less. In the Labour Uncut blog, political pundit David Talbot described the predicament of Miliband’s Labour Party quite accurately. It is a similar predicament to that faced by the PN.
Talbot wrote: “Too much of Labour’s strategy at present appears to be based on the coalition’s unpopularity, and frankly, keeping low and not saying anything too stupid. Indeed, as a political strategy it is well worn and often successful in the short term.
“But three years on, Labour has rightly set itself an ambitious target of returning to power after just a single term out of office – a feat, historically, that has been near impossible to muster. Wearing an invisibility cloak for the next two years simply won’t achieve that high aim.” We’ll see if Busuttil takes note.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt