The news that the president of the Malta Developers Association, Sandro Chetcuti, was asked by both party leaders to contest the general election did not come as a surprise. When Malta Today journalist Raphael Vassallo quipped that Chetcuti should become the first two-party candidate, this was an accurate reflection of the political monoliths we live with and the coming election.
Given the apparently polycephalous state of PN, one wonders whether Simon Busuttil will extend such magnanimous invitations without the assent of Marlene Farrugia.
The proposed merger between the PN and PD is far from clear, but let’s be clear about one thing. We’re not talking coalition – at least not in the classical sense of two or more parties coming together in the interests of stable government after, not before, an election.
Maltese constitutional law does not permit coalition. It effectively aids and abets our two-party, winner-takes-all way of doing politics, with all the networking and not-working that goes with it. This prevents the electorate’s wider voice from being heard. There’s no kind of proportional representation whatsoever.
The present PN-PD rapprochement can’t be construed as a coalition or balanced response to the express will of the people. It’s a tactical deal, an opportunistic gamble on the election.
Its supporters, of course, will still talk it up as a patriotic act – an attempt to rid Malta of sleaze and corruption. But those opposed to it, or at least sceptical, will detect fear verging on panic in the ranks (divided or otherwise) of the Nationalist Party at the prospect of a further Labour Party term.
There’s also a growing realisation that Busuttil’s ‘clean’ but bland image may be insufficient to enthuse the Nationalist fan-base, let alone attract crucial swinging voters. This is the party which, in the past, always looked – and acted – more smartly than PL, and certainly never had recourse to last-minute gimmickry.
The ‘psychology’ of Partit Demokratiku is even more interesting. Farrugia is obviously staging her political comeback. She’ll probably be elected, to the disadvantage and dismay of certain loyal PN candidates, but without bringing disaffected Labour voters with her over the party divide.
The present PN-PD rapprochement can’t be construed as a coalition or balanced response to the express will of the people
Farrugia obviously has no time for the admirable principles of Alternattiva Demokratika’s Michael Briguglio. It’s raw power she’s after: the mandate of a section of the electorate to put her ‘there’, ahead of the PN ministers-in-waiting. She is a rabble-rouser with the presence to get the message across, which is presumably why Busuttil wants her on side. But whether the colours under which they march – blue and orange – are evenly or proportionately distributed remains to be seen. Farrugia definitely has what it takes to upstage Busuttil in the heat of electioneering. And female Prime Ministers are very chic these days, and worn high.
What of Labour? It’s easy to quip that blue and orange when mixed amount to muddy brown, that PN has ‘two heads’. But my impression is that PL is not feeling particularly outmanoeuvred: those two heads are not necessarily better than one. There is evidence already, from the timing of various communiqués, that Busuttil and Farrugia are not always on the same page.
These are parties looking to ‘converge’ on the big things, so they ought, at the very least, to be synchronised. As early as April 7, Farrugia decided she was ‘thug’ enough to protect Busuttil and mature enough to ‘step up’. This barely coherent Facebook declaration, decorated bizarrely with oranges and lemons (or green apples?), together with blue, pink and purple hearts, was followed by something that read like a fait accompli: “Together, we will secure a victory for all Maltese and Gozitans, a victory that will last for an entire legislature, not a victory that is snuffed out the very week after the election.”
The first ‘snuff-out’ came from Busuttil himself, who apparently didn’t get the Facebook memo. When questioned five days later, he played it down, insisting that talks were still under way and that nothing had been finalised. Was this coyness, an unwillingness to admit to the Parliamentary group that he had forged ahead behind their backs? Many Nationalist MPs are demoralised and confused, while constituents see it as a sell-out.
This does not augur well.
Ultimately this is a deal reflective of the realities (and legalities) of Maltese political life. Many will be disappointed that PD has copped out and opted so soon for the ‘realpolitik’ of getting elected come what may. Even so, the prospect of a growing coalescence of centre-left/environmental groups is not out of the question, given the fact that we Maltese are now thinking for ourselves and opening our eyes, both here and abroad.
Coalescence rather than coalition…sounds good.
My column
Daphne Caruana Galizia recently made the earth-shattering discovery that, on top of writing a fortnightly column for this newspaper, I also proof-read and translate for the government, just as I had done under the previous administration (all conveniently ignored). In my view, hers is an attempt to silence me as a columnist and cast doubt on my independence and integrity.
Fact. I don’t create content or government strategy. The ad-hoc ‘technical work’ I do – checking syntax and style – does not remotely interfere with my independence as a columnist. It has never stopped me criticising PL on issues from Panama to the American University (and everything in between).
My income doesn’t depend on proof-reading; but, to some extent, it does depend on the courts. I invite readers to judge me on whether I have ever shied away from criticising the judiciary, the Attorney General’s Office or the police, when the situation called for it.
The occasional translation and editorial work I carry out for this government began in 2015. Any editing/proofing work I carried out for any government before that, I did under a Nationalist government.
I stand by the content of what I have written over the years for this newspaper. I have always approached every topic independently, responding always on an issue’s individual merits.
To stop writing would be, for me, a betrayal of democracy when it’s most threatened. Talk about the ‘chilling effects’ of freedom of expression.