Televised debates between political leaders aren’t the audience magnets that they were a couple of decades ago when a Dom Mintoff/Eddie Fenech Adami confrontation meant deserted streets and their exchanges echoing throughout the country as the nation tuned in to that one channel and listened entranced.
Social media, politicians’ awful Renzi-like selfie fixation and the wall-to-wall coverage of their every utterance means that many of us know what they are up to and we have a pretty good idea of what opinion they hold on pertinent issues. However, a debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition still retains that residual allure – the prospect of a direct clash between the most prominent political figures does that.
Last Tuesday’s debate on Times Talk between Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil did not deliver any startling revelations. The news about the hospital campus in Gozo – though positive and very welcome – had been mentioned before. And the fact that both Muscat and Busuttil rued some decisions they had taken in the past, is neither here nor there.
It’s all very well for the Prime Minister to say he regrets his migrants pushback initiative or for the Leader of the Opposition to declare that the PN abstaining on civil unions wasn’t a good idea. But it’s all water under the bridge now, and their nibbling on little crumbs of humble pie long after the deed is done looks like more of an attempt to show viewers how they make mistakes like the rest of us. Frankly, we can do without these belated apologies. A bit of foresight would be preferable.
Although there were no moments of high drama or gamechangers during the debate, it was an interesting exercise as both Muscat and Busuttil unwittingly revealed much about themselves through their delivery and their attitude. Starting off with the Prime Minister, who held the upper hand throughout the debate. His self-confidence (at times veering on arrogance) was evident, and he parried most of Busuttil’s accusations with ease.
Not even the damning report of the Auditor General about the Café Premier affair managed to fluster him unduly. Muscat knows he is backed by massive popular support and that the economy is doing well. This makes him impervious to most of the slings and arrows aimed at him. The absolutely disastrous handling of the Café Premier bailout, the cavalier disregard for due process and even dubious appointments have apparently not dented his popularity.
We don’t want a Prime Minister who thinks he is a super hero – one who does his job honestly and humbly will do
It is inevitable that Muscat feels he is invincible – a feeling which poses a danger to the democracy and transparency in the country.
If the Prime Minister feels that he can get away with anything because the public will support him, he will inevitably be tempted to taking even more decisions on his own, brooking no opposition and not bothering to take on board differing opinions or advice. This presidential form of leadership is already a hallmark of Muscat’s premiership. It’s fine for the first years while everything goes well, but when the bloom wears off the rose, it’s a recipe for mass disillusionment.
History tends to repeat itself and Muscat’s meteoric rise to the top dog spot closely resembles that of another Labour Prime Minister – Tony Blair. Following his 1997 landslide victory, Blair also enjoyed an extended love-in with the British public.
He was charismatic, decidedly unstuffy and displayed a ‘can-do’ attitude – all of which Muscat emulates to some degree. However, Blair’s direct connection to the public led him to commit serious errors which eventually culminated in the Iraq debacle and the disillusionment of the British with the political system.
Political commentator Gill Corkindale wrote about how it all went wrong for Blair. She mentions his presidential rather than Cabinet-style of leadership – a very Muscatian trait (remember the whisking away of the former health minister’s tent and his personal intervention in the Café Premier affair?).
Another thing Muscat and Blair have in common is their trying to appeal to too many stakeholders.
Blair’s personality allowed to give the impression of agreeing with others and presenting himself in the best possible light. Muscat does this too – with his big tent approach and his seemingly friendly and open door approach to all. However, when push comes to shove, he does precisely what he wanted to do in the first place.
Then there was the way that Blair’s government relied on launching too many initiatives and not seeing them through. His government kicked off a deluge of initiatives designed to give the impression of an impressive and energetic government bent on reform. Yet few lasted the course or delivered any real or lasting change.
It is too early to tell whether Muscat’s flurry of initiatives will materialise, and one doesn’t want to be a wet blanket. But there are a couple of projects which would have been better off with a more cautious approach.
Finally, and most significantly, Corkindale pointed out that Blair believed in his own hype.
She says: “Blair emerges from his memoir as a man who is super-confident, bordering on supreme arrogance. It is a salutary story of how power can inflate the ego, but Blair is unapologetic in his belief that he is a man of courage and destiny.”
Muscat should avoid going down the same path. To borrow a quote from the last Spiderman movie, “with great power, comes great responsibility”. We don’t want a Prime Minister who thinks he is a super hero; one who does his job honestly and humbly will do.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt