Prime Minister Joseph Muscat described the scaled-down Żonqor university project as a fair and just compromise. Kurt Sansone asks whether the change was a U-turn or the result of political strategy.

When government plans for a golf course at Ix-Xagħra l-Ħamra were ditched in 2007 many had hoped the U-turn signalled the start of a greener public policy.

The capitulation on the golf course and the same-day decision to turn the area into a national park came a couple of days after then-prime minister Lawrence Gonzi had closed the spring hunting season because of a massacre of honey buzzards.

It was May and the next general election was 10 months away. For environmentalists the two decisions in the span of a week were welcome news, but some also questioned whether the motivation was the discovery of a green consciousness or the result of waning political support.

One of those casting doubt on the golf course decision was Evarist Bartolo, then shadow tourism spokesman.

In an opinion piece penned for the Times of Malta, titled ‘Wild thyme and blue votes’, Mr Bartolo had described Dr Gonzi’s decision as “a damage control exercise” and part of the PN’s strategy to heal relations with environ­mentalists who had been angered by the previous year’s extension of development boundaries.

“Dr Gonzi was looking at disgruntled voters in the PN heartlands,not at the wild thyme and the garigue of Ix-Xagħra l-Ħamra, when he announced his conversion to a natural heritage park in the area yesterday week,” Mr Bartolo wrote.

The golf course proposal had been championed by Dr Gonzi soon after becoming leader in 2004. It had faced strong opposition from environmentalists and farmers in Manikata but the cherry on the cake was the 2006 extension of development boundaries that got many hot under the collar.

The country had even witnessed two well-attended, pro-environment protests in Valletta led by Astrid Vella’s new group, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.

There are parallels to be drawn between 2007 and the current Żonqor Point controversy, which also prompted the formation of an activist group called Front Ħarsien ODZ, even though the actors have swapped roles.

In both cases the prime ministers had made the projects theirs. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had initially floated the Żonqor university plans during a Workers’ Day celebration in Żejtun and went on to organise a political meeting at Marsascala to drum up support for the idea.

And like Dr Gonzi did eight years earlier, Dr Muscat had to cut back on the plans and come up with a different solution after facing public flak.

But questions have been asked whether the Żonqor case is truly a U-turn or simply a strategic move that would deliver what the Prime Minister had wanted all along.

I believe when a government… stops and listens… it is very healthy for democracy

The answer to this question will probably only be known years down the line, according to George Vital Zammit, a lecturer of politics and public policy at the University of Malta.

He notes that some segments of the population feel the compromise reached over the private university’s location is still not a good deal. Some environmentalists have argued Dr Muscat’s change in direction was the result of a pre-calculated strategy.

Whether this is the case will only be known over time when people involved in the thick of it speak out and publish their anecdotes, Dr Zammit adds.

“Leaving room for manoeuvre, similar to the negotiating positions adopted by unions and employers over collective agreements or sellers and buyers in a property deal, is a strategy often used by governments when controversial projects are involved.”

However, he believes the government did not expect the vociferous opposition it encountered on this project, which prompted it to go back to the negotiating table.

Had the Prime Minister not changed his stance it would have gone directly against the government’s own mantra of Gvern li Jisma’ (a government that listens), Dr Zammit says.

But he would rather describe the Żonqor shift a change in position rather than a U-turn. “It would have been a U-turn had the project been shelved completely.”

On the other hand, philosophy professor Joe Friggieri has no qualms about calling it a U-turn, at least insofar as the physical location of the building is concerned.

“Many would have preferred a radical rethink of the whole project, because there are still many questions that are being asked and need to be answered regarding the nature of the institution itself,” he says.

Prof. Friggieri concurs that the government did not expect such strong opposition. The government should lead by example where the environment is concerned, and in this case it was doing just the opposite, he adds.

Reviewing a decision may evoke perceptions of weakness or strength, depending on where the individual making the assessment stands.

For some in the environmental lobby, scaling back the Żonqor project was deemed a victory – a sort of warning to the Prime Minister that he is now on notice and the green lobby cannot be ignored.

This has been the argument floated by Front Ħarsien ODZ’s foremost campaigners, James Debono and Michael Briguglio.

In this context Dr Muscat is perceived as having been weakened by civil society’s resistance because, although the green lobby may not have won an outright victory, he was forced to rethink his plans.

Yet for others within the green movement the compromise solution is no victory because 18,000 square metres of land in an outside development zone will still be sacrificed.

Indeed, some like sociologist Mark-Anthony Falzon have argued that the base principle of the project – allowing a private investor to exploit public property and land given to him by the State – has gone unchallenged.

This frame of mind makes Dr Muscat a sure winner at the expense of the environment and public opposition.

The truth most probably is somewhere in-between, but for Prof. Friggieri the issue was not a question of compromise but one of limiting the consequences of “a bad decision”.

“That, in itself, is not a bad thing. But it would have been much better had that decision not been taken in the first place,” he says.

Politicians do not like the word ‘U-turn’; it has negative connotations. Politicians prefer couching U-turns in jargon that implies they have listened. This is what Dr Gonzi did eight years ago and what Dr Muscat is doing now.

Some argue that Dr Gonzi’s astuteness in 2007 when he reversed the golf course decision was not followed up in the last legislature over the construction of Renzo Piano’s parliament.

This may be debatable since shifting positions according to popular whim may fuel criticism of a different kind.

Whatever the motivations a politician may have to change stance, U-turns will always remain contentious. But for Dr Zammit, change, as happened in the Żonqor case and the Xagħra l-Ħamra golf course, is salutary for democracy.

“I believe when a government with a political commitment to do something stops and listens and returns to the negotiating table to find a different solution, it is very healthy for democracy,” he says.

kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com