Political upheavals are often compared to the movement in the tectonic plates of society. A shift of that kind occurred in Maltese politics in March 2013. Measured on the Richter Scale, it was probably a 6 or 7 – “specially designed structures damaged, others collapsed, many structures destroyed, cracks in ground”.

Earthquakes result from the sudden release of tectonic stress along a fault line. In 2013, that fault line lay with the Nationalist Administration, which was seen as corrupt, self-serving, disunited and arrogant. Nearly two years later, despite a popular and populist Budget, I have a sense that the political ground in Malta is shifting. It is very low on the Richter Scale, perhaps 1 or 2 − “not felt generally, but recorded on seismometers”.

The first sign of this was the successful convention held by the Nationalist Party a month ago. Simon Busuttil’s pledge to make “a clean break with his party’s past” and to stay in close touch with the people was welcome. What he promised was that there was to be a break with the immediate past, which had witnessed a party at war with itself, swimming against the social current and presiding over a corrupt and dysfunctional Enemalta.

His resolve must be welcomed, together with his determination to assert his leadership. His statement about “embracing all sectors of society, including… gay people and migrants”, demonstrated a long overdue willingness to face down the old, conservative core of his party. It was a tacit recognition that Malta has changed and the PN must change with it or risk being consigned to opposition for the next eight years or more.

Malta desperately needs a strong leader of the Opposition and, last month, we saw the first indications of one emerging from the rubble of March 2013.

In a thriving democracy it is vitally important that the government – especially one which enjoys such a commanding majority in the House of Representatives as Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s – should have an effective Opposition to hold it to account.

Despite the welcome signs of revival in the PN, however, the fact is that elections are not won by the Opposition. They are lost by the party in government.

After two years in government, one cannot help noticing clear signs of slap-dash administration and – yes – arrogance in the exercise of power by the government which, if not curbed and reversed, will come to haunt the Prime Minister in three years’ time. The latest incident involving the accident-prone Minister for Home Affairs is but the worst.

The minister must go.

Recent developments present Busuttil with the opportunity to alter the political balance of power, although it is difficult to see any chance at present of overturning the government’s huge majority in Parliament and the significant lead it enjoyed in the polls.

The government’s much-vaunted road map is being pursued with energy – and the momentum which comes from a large majority in the House. But it is not being conducted efficiently or to the greater benefit of the country at large. Too many vested interests are being placated to the detriment of the common good. The voter is beginning to recognise this.

There are two areas of concern.

The first is the poor day-to-day administration of the country and the abuse of power in the public service by a government overwhelmingly voted in on a platform of meritocracy.

The Ombudsman, which is an independent model of rectitude, has drawn attention to the government’s shoddy recruitment of people to the public service and its misuse of positions of trust and direct appointments.

Too many vested interests are being placated to the detriment of the common good. The voter is beginning to recognise this

The failure of the Prime Minister to adhere to his promise that Malta “does not belong to a clique, Malta does not belong to a particular politician or a particular party” is bad enough. But it is rendered worse by the rotten governance and administration delivered by the people he has selected purely on grounds of political colour. The failure to build the new power station on time – a central pillar of his electoral manifesto – is but the most significant.

The appalling mess of leadership and recruitment in the Police Force, the lawlessness of hunters, some Enemalta employees, boathouse owners and construction magnates, the failure to set up a properly functioning environmental directorate, the lack of a binding strategic plan for construction development in the planning authority, the still unsettled future of the public transport system, the incomplete Parliament building, the blatant lack of coordination of road works and the consequent chaos on the roads, all these issues, and others, are an affront to good administration.

Despite the largest Cabinet ever and a massive increase in public sector employment since 2013 to support it, the results are abysmal. They offer poor value for money to the Maltese taxpayer.

Even the normally complacent Maltese man in the street, who is content to enjoy a still relatively healthy economy, cannot help failing to notice what is going on around him.

The second is the government’s poor record on transparency and accountability. Muscat was elected on a commitment to restore public trust in government. He promised to promote transparency, accountability and openness. They are fundamental to good governance. Yet, in government, there has been a consistent failure to respond to legitimate Opposition – and public – concerns on issues of national importance.

The refusal to provide legitimate information about the contract with Henley & Partners over the sale of citizenship. The obfuscation over the deal with Shanghai Electric over Enemalta and much else concerning the new power station. These are perhaps the most notable examples. Other (milder) examples of ministerial lack of transparency present a picture of a government with much to hide. They represent a dereliction of the government’s duty to inform and of its accountability to Parliament and the voters.

The two areas I have highlighted – that is, poor administration and governance, lack of accountability and transparency – are interrelated. They all stem from a feeling of invincibility, of hubris, which even a largely complacent electorate cannot fail to notice.

Busuttil is rightly focusing on re-inventing the PN and winning back trust. Until now, he has appeared content simply to wage a form of guerrilla warfare on the government, without presenting anything new to show that the Nationalists are on the road to real change.

This may now be changing. While I am not convinced that his stance on party political funding is right (with its debatable emphasis on “stolen public property”) what he said about his determination to deal with “political patronage” in public life strikes a real bell with the electorate. He also insisted on his commitment to transparency in government and the need to honour a proper recruitment system to the public service, “a leaner public sector and a liberal orientation towards business regulation”.

This is the stuff on which real policies can be built. But saying this is not enough. If it doesn’t inspire people with hope of better governance and a better future he will fail.

Unless he makes a bold pledge to implement real change on clientalism, positions of trust, the public service, transparency and accountability – and, importantly, spells out how – he will continue to be damned by the past failure of his party to behave differently in these areas when in government.