Chances are that when people think of the Watergate scandal they think of the mythicised version of the scandal; the one where intrepid journalistic duos (looking like the Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman starring in the screen adaptation) meet a top secret source in an underground garage and are given confidential information which immediately leads to the dodgy US President’s resignation.
In the popular imagination, time is condensed, consequences follow actions swiftly and the President’s downfall comes about soon after the initial break-in was reported.
In reality, the Watergate saga was drawn out over two agonising years – during which President Richard Nixon slowly lost his authority and popularity (from a high of nearly 70 per cent trust rating to just above 20 per cent).
He made several desperate bids to delay the inevitable, one of which was stalling the nomination of acting FBI director Patrick Gray. When Gray revealed government interference in the FBI investigation on Watergate, Nixon agreed that he should be isolated and to “twist slowly, slowly in the wind”.
I can’t help feeling that that phrase encapsulates the way Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has addressed the Panama Papers scandal in Malta – by allowing a number of parties to twist slowly, slowly in the wind – with grave repercussions for the country and any remaining vestige of public confidence in its leaders.
The news of Konrad Mizzi’s ownership of a corporate vehicle in a notorious tax haven preceded the release of the Panama Papers by some three weeks. Despite the fact that no conclusive proof of illegal dealings having been unearthed, that in itself should have prompted the Prime Minister to take immediate and decisive action by removing the minister.
Why orchestrate that ridiculous and revolting piece of political theatre in front of the law courts?
His reluctance to act has given rise to suspicions that he is somehow beholden to Mizzi. This is especially the case as Muscat was not loath to jettison then deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia over a relatively unimportant comment.
So why the difference in treatment? A wobble in leadership qualities – or some darker factor?
The Prime Minister’s muted response has also led to widespread rifts within the Labour Party. Whereas previously he could do no wrong – a golden boy walking on water – the shine has gone off the rose and Muscat is seen as promoting certain factions within the party while distancing others for minor infringements.
It is no wonder that resentment is evident within the Labour camp, as those supporters who have survived the party’s wilderness years now have to face the fallout from a scandal that they had no part of.
Above all, the Prime Minister’s reticence to confront the issue immediately has had negative effects on the country, which is faced once more with politicians who seem to think there is a two-tiered system of conduct, taxation and probity where they conduct their affairs with impunity and your average citizen has to bear the full brunt of the law.
This will only serve to entrench the widely held view that transparency in politics is impossible. Commenting on the Watergate affair before the final denouement, Senator Charles Percy, the Illinois Republican, had said that “the whole story is not out, and it will get worse, not better”; so will the implications of Panamagate for Malta.
• Opposition MP Jason Azzopardi will not be serving time behind bars even if he is found guilty of the criminal defamation charge filed against him.
There is no way that he will be subsisting on bread and water and lugging a ball and chain round his weary ankles. It is most unlikely that he will have to take up curtain-making to occupy his days at Corradino Correctional Facility.
Having practised as a lawyer for over two decades, Azzopardi is aware of this. He is also aware that the last time someone was imprisoned for defamation or libel has been forgotten – lost in the mists of time.
Azzopardi also knows that criminal proceedings for breach of libel laws are initiated practically every week. It couldn’t have escaped his notice that if the relevant laws were so objectionable, he could have moved a private member’s Bill for their removal at any point of the PN’s term in office and his fellow Nationalist parliamentary colleagues should have supported him.
Knowing all this, what reason would Azzopardi have to depict himself as some wronged martyr on the altar of the right to freedom of expression, when he is simply a defendant in another lawsuit, as hundreds of others are?
Why orchestrate that ridiculous and revolting piece of political theatre in front of the law courts? If this is the way the Nationalist Party intends to drum up support among people with an iota of common sense, it should go back to the drawing board. Don’t join the others in insulting voters’ intelligence.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt