A few months ago, I thought I sensed the first signs of a shift in Malta’s political tectonic plates. Opposition leader Simon Busuttil had had a successful party conference. He had pledged to make “a clean break with his party’s past and to stay in close touch with the people”.
This, he said, was central to what he wished to achieve. Party stalwarts were invigorated by this and independent political commentators like myself felt that this was a move, albeit tardy, in the right direction.
His resolve was welcome, 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 Nationalist Party 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. Last autumn we thought we discerned the first signs of one emerging from the rubble of March 2013.
There seemed to be a new spring in the Nationalist Party leader’s step which was getting through to the people he led. The dreadful initial bungling of the resignation of the accident-prone Manuel Mallia by the normally sure-footed Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, added to a feeling that perhaps Busuttil’s fortunes were changing.
He seemed about to start wholeheartedly focusing on re-inventing the PN and winning back trust, instead of simply conducting a form of guerrilla warfare on the government.
While the latter has a perfectly acceptable place in an Opposition leader’s armoury, it can only form a small element of the art of politics which must focus on showing that a party so roundly defeated 21 months ago has something new to show and is on the road to real change.
Buoyed by the Mallia debacle, Busuttil followed it up with another long overdue move to impose his authority on his party by reshuffling his Shadow Cabinet.
New faces were promoted, including the largest number of women in Malta’s political history. The dross which he had inherited from his predecessor were demoted. Matters seemed to be set fair for a new lease of life to Busuttil’s leadership aspirations and a glimmer of hope for PN’s future electoral fortunes.
But, as often happens in politics, a leader is only as good as his last major decision. Only as good as his last key test of courage and judgment. Busuttil had already failed one test in dealing with the Civil Unions Bill. That misjudgement had cast a searchlight on his leadership.
No amount of spin could disguise that by abstaining, his party had voted not to express a view on a Bill which fundamentally represented the very things that the PN stood for in its electoral manifesto.
In the light of that experience, one would have expected that when the question of the abrogative referendum on spring hunting came about – an issue which had long been trailed and for which there had been ample time to prepare – he would have been ready with his decision and itching to wrong-foot the Prime Minister.
Instead, Muscat stole the political headlines with his eye-catching decision to vote, “on a personal basis,” in favour of the retention of spring hunting, while Busuttil was caught flat-footed “consulting with members of the party”, all “five organs”.
It pains me to say that this was a dreadful case of “managerialism”, not leadership. Worse, his decision, when it eventually came one week later, pusillanimously echoed Muscat’s.
Not only did it mirror Muscat’s but, rather like the decision on civil unions, it made no moral or political sense. The fact that 12 years ago, Busuttil, not even then in politics, had formed part of Malta’s negotiating team which sought a derogation on spring hunting should have been neither here nor there.
For the second time in a year, Busuttil’s leadership has been found wanting at a time when boldness of action, courage and judgement were most needed
Worse, Busuttil took absolutely no account either of the reasons for the PN adopting that position 12 years ago, or of the change of circumstance in Malta since then. Seeking a derogation in 2003 was a necessary presentational step to ensure the overriding strategic objective of securing Malta’s entry into Europe.
That objective was achieved – to Malta’s greater benefit. It was simply a means to an important political end.
Today, the concession on the hunting derogation is history and all the evidence before us is that it has been abused and has besmirched Malta’s name in Europe.
The burning issue now is whether that political fix is any longer morally, environmentally and politically right. When Busuttil says that “he is not a hunter, but an environmentalist and an animal-lover”, he gives a clear answer to that question. He clearly does not think today that the derogation is either morally, environmentally or politically right.
Every instinct in my body tells me that virtually to a man and woman every member of the Nationalist Party is against spring hunting. By his misplaced decision, Busuttil has put himself out of line with the natural instincts of his own party and has alienated the progressive liberal vote the party must win back to return to power. It undermines both the anti-hunting campaign and the party he leads.
Where was the guile to craft a response that persuaded PN voters and liberal-leaning swing voters – who are now disenchanted with Muscat’s political gamesmanship on hunting and many other issues – that Busuttil shared their values? Where was the moral conviction in the position he adopted?
For the second time in a year, Busuttil’s leadership has been found wanting at a time when boldness of action, courage and judgement were most needed.
A leader must have the force of character to inspire others to follow him. Force of character comes through knowing what he wants to do and having the determination and courage to do it.
Political leadership involves will-power and the conviction to take the daring initiatives needed.
The courage to make a decision is an absolute must in a leader. The supreme importance of this quality cannot be exaggerated.
When it is a choice between two courses, one cautious and one bold and daring, history shows that to gain success in politics a leader must adopt the bold and audacious course.
Doing nothing is almost always wrong. Opting for the status quo and supporting Muscat on hunting was, indeed, worse than doing nothing.
Moreover, the ability to take a decision is closely wrapped up with that of good judgement. The leader’s power of decision results from his ability to remain resolute and to show the right judgement in reaching a good decision. A leader will never learn to judge matters if he is afraid of being bold.
The fundamental elements of the leader are his ability to grasp the essentials of a problem, and then to make the right decision.
This is the basic lesson of leadership which, I daresay, Busuttil would, on reflection, agree was missing both on civil unions and now on spring hunting.
A pity, because he had a chance to ensure Muscat got a bloody nose on hunting. Sadly, through his lack of boldness, he has fluffed it.