Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca talks about consumption and the need to subsidise it for the less well off. Photo: Mark Zammit Cordina

Much has already been written about Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca’s nomination for the presidency. It’s covered everything from the wisdom of nominating her to the wisdom of the proposed role she will occupy. Everything? Well, there’s one thing that’s been left out.

In discussing the wisdom of this or that, the obvious has been forgotten.

It has to do with the implications of the fact that, in each case, it’s the wisdom of Joseph Muscat that’s being praised or challenged. Labour and much of the government were faced with a decision taken away from their respective formal decision-making structures.

As the prime minister put it in an interview with MaltaToday: “It is a question of where I want the presidency to go.”

It’s about what he, Muscat, personally wants. Once assured the proposed changes are legal, the others simply accept. Sometimes a minister might tell an interviewer that, on reflection, the choice makes sense. But, if reflection was needed, it only goes to show how much of an initial surprise the decision was.

The mantra is that such choices are the prerogative of the prime minister. Yes, of course, but we’ve forgotten what this implies about our political system.

Whatever it says on paper, we effectively have a system that lavishes on the prime minister many powers of an executive president. In practice, he not only personally chooses the next president. He can even openly speak about where he, personally, wants the presidency to go and why, therefore, it’s actually going there.

The way we describe ourselves on paper – our Constitution – does not match the way the system actually operates. So far, we’ve lived with the contradiction by respecting appearances. But I suspect that if there is going to be a presidency that will begin to bring the cracks to light, it will be Coleiro Preca’s.

If it happens, it won’t be because of personalities. Not primarily, anyway. We shouldn’t lay much store about the idea that Coleiro Preca is being kicked upstairs because she represents some kind of internal threat to Muscat.

She’s popular but is no alternative leader. In the 2008 leadership contest, she trailed the initial five-horse race with 2.9 per cent of the vote.

Nor are there any real ideological differences between her and Muscat, at least none that have come out in the open.

She’s been called a socialist. But a real socialist would be making speeches about the economy and ownership, about how one creates wealth and how much one keeps of it. It’s a subject from which, to my knowledge, she’s stayed away in her 16 years in Parliament.

Instead, Coleiro Preca talks about consumption and the need to subsidise it for the less well off. The difference from Muscat lies only in the emphasis.

With Coleiro Preca, it’s the signature tune and the signature audience whereas Muscat also likes to talk about, and to, the people who make money.

As far as I can tell, the internal Labour protests against her nomination had nothing to do with ideology and all to do with electioneering. Why remove a minister very accessible to grassroots voters when the latter are getting restive?

Muscat has replied by saying that Coleiro Preca, as president, will be responsible for the national strategy on poverty and chairing certain commissions. He says it’s legally possible, that it won’t blur the distinction between the executive and the presidency, but also describes the change of role as political.

And that is where the tension will lie. Muscat is describing a role that will be political but not partisan. He says the new role will contribute to national unity and elevate the presidency.

It’s difficult to see how the new role will not open the presidency to political criticism in the media

In practice, it’s difficult to see how the new role will not open the presidency to political criticism in the media. It’s also difficult to see why, in a democracy, the media should hold back; but how that will strengthen national unity and elevate the presidency is an open question.

In Malta, so far, the media have generally been very restrained in dealing with presidents who have carried out their duties in a way that was open to question. But that ethos is going to be difficult to keep up when the president is going to play such an important role with respect to an issue as politically charged as poverty.

It’s a unifying topic only in the limited sense that we feel it’s a pity that it exists. But once we begin to discuss it concretely, it’s highly political. It inevitably involves choices that have to do with our money.

Take the causes of poverty. One of them is clearly linked to the size of the welfare state and the taxation system. A single mother in the US has an exponentially larger chance of being poor (over 50 per cent, some years ago) than her counterpart in Sweden (under 10 per cent).

The fact that economic inequality in this country is rising is no coincidence.

It is the result of economic and tax policies that both major political parties have, broadly, endorsed. In general, a low-tax economy that emphasises equal opportunity is going to have a much harder time addressing inequality. Social disparities tend to be starker.

Given that we have to spend money on it, how to tackle radical inequality is never politically neutral and inevitably divisive. Choices need to be made because we cannot have it all. Lower taxes and less welfare? Higher taxes and more welfare? Same taxes but different spending priorities? Political parties are electorally authorised to make these choices. But the presidency?

In a democracy, there are two things that come with public responsibility.

First, with responsibility come choices. If you don’t have a choice, you’re not really responsible. How long can a president put up with being held responsible but, at the same time, being unable to recommend fundamental options?

In their turn, however, choices are always divisive. Is putting some political choices (or right to make recommendations) into a president’s hands going to help the cause of making the presidency a symbol of national unity? Probably not.

Second, responsibility for public choices comes with being open to public scrutiny and criticism. A president cannot make important recommendations and not expect to be criticised. Would that be compatible with Muscat’s expressed wish for a more ‘elevated’ presidency?

What would happen if a government changed in the middle of a president’s term and the president is suddenly given a completely new agenda?

If the president agrees to it, the office becomes subservient to the prime minister. If she does not, she’d be challenging the government’s electoral mandate. The contradiction in our system – between appearances and a prime minister who is a de facto executive president – would be out in the open. How long can that last?

What the prime minister is proposing may be legal in principle. But it’s going to be interesting to watch it work in practice.

ranierfsadni@europe.com