As the government’s standing has fallen precipitously from the high trust rating of three years ago and the opinion polls have turned against the Prime Minister, there is a new spring in the Opposition leader’s step.
Has the Nationalist Party turned a corner and do the sunlit uplands of government in less than two years beckon? The short answer is: not yet.
Although the Nationalist opposition has gained ground, this has only come about in response to the bad governance of the Labour administration and the lingering stench of corruption in the air. It is a negative reflection on Muscat, not a positive one about Busuttil.
Judging by the shrill, back-to-the-1980s tone of voice that Busuttil has adopted, he clearly thinks that simply fostering a feel-bad factor will be sufficient to see his party through at the next election.
Nothing is less likely. In politics, words are action. Leaders need them to mobilise support. Thousands of voters – those who might swing the next election – do not know with certainty, what Busuttil’s beliefs are (other than deep animosity for Labour and a willingness to tack to whichever wind is blowing), what his policies are, and what leadership qualities he brings which are better than the Prime Minister’s.
He has rightly sought to make much of the corruption that has engulfed the government, but in doing so he has unerringly reminded others of the ignominy under Nationalist administrations surrounding the construction of the €700 million Mater Dei Hospital, the institutionalised vandalism caused by the expansion of development zones and the multi-million euro oil-gate scandal at Enemalta.
Although there has been talk of setting out new PN policies, it is only now that tentative outlines are emerging. Crucial arguments to make clear blue water between his party and Labour have not been presented. He must now establish credibility and develop comprehensive policies rather than postures.
Busuttil has to demonstrate through his party’s new policies that a Nationalist government under his leadership would not only be different from what it was up to 2013. But also that it would be markedly different from Labour. He will not achieve this unless his policies inspire people with tangible hope of a better future.
What we have seen so far on good governance and various aspects of the environment are so full of holes as to question whether they have really helped take the party’s credibility as a government-in-waiting any further forward. It is no good presenting policy documents if they are not properly developed, persuasive and demonstrably workable.
One has to question whether he has found the best minds in PN (as it did in the 1980s, led by the redoubtable Fr Peter Serracino Inglott), to re-energise the party’s thinking and make it credible again to a wide cross-section of the Maltese electorate.
Simon Busuttil has missed a trick by not publishing his own up-to-date code of ethics spelling out the standards expected of ministers and MPs
The self-inflicted mistakes of “patronage and plunder”, which Muscat has committed, have taken their toll. Busuttil has published a policy document themed ‘Restoring trust in politics’, which sets out a wide-ranging set of proposals “aimed at addressing alleged corruption, fraud, conflict of interest, incompetence, irregularities, clientelism, nepotism and discriminatory practices in government”.
It contains many good proposals as well as some which should be ditched as populist or unworkable. The daft ‘Ministry for Citizens’ Rights’ comes to mind.
Despite its being at the core of Malta’s poor governance, the word “corruption” and steps to counter it barely feature in the document. Neither does the review of the Constitution, currently stalled because of the immature unwillingness of both political leaders to find a constructive compromise to take it forward.
When Busuttil comes to finalising his governance proposals he would do well to focus on four key areas: a review of the Constitution to ensure there are greater controls placed on the executive and better checks and balances; effective steps to counter corruption and maintain public ethical standards; proper scrutiny by Parliament of all senior public appointments; and a more potent Freedom of Information Act to ensure transparency and accountability and prevent governments from hiding behind spurious excuses of confidentiality.
But even more fundamentally, good governance is not only about institutions and good administration, but also about political will and leadership. Would Busuttil confront construction magnates who flouted the planning law with impunity?
That Busuttil has chosen never to address that question speaks volumes about his attitude to good governance and the rule of law. He seems unwilling to take the hard decisions to change the Maltese culture, which is the fount of all our governance problems. How does Busuttil demonstrate convincingly that his party is not already storing up promises of rewards to PN apparatchiks when their place in the sun comes around again?
Unless Busuttil can unequivocally and satisfactorily introduce policies on governance that answer these questions, we must conclude that his proposals lack hard-edged substance.
Importantly, Busuttil has missed a trick by not publishing his own up-to-date code of ethics spelling out the standards expected of ministers and MPs. He must also commit any future Nationalist government to having somebody who will police the code of ethics and ensure conformity to the highest principles of public life.
The second policy area where Busuttil has published a “partial review” is on the environment. Again, anxious to tap into an area of public opinion on which the government is vulnerable, Busuttil has made a number of proposals.
The centrepiece of his policy concerned ODZ and his declaration that to ensure it is adequately protected any such land should in future require approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
He took as his model for ODZ decisions the system already in place for the nomination of the president.
Reactions to it, however, have rightly focussed on whether his proposal would prove workable in practice. Under the system for electing the president, if no consensus is reached following two votes a decision is taken based on a simple majority.
This has almost invariably been the upshot of this process and, given the polarised nature of our politics, seems unlikely to be any different when it comes to an ODZ vote, thus not really taking matters any further forward.
More pertinently, there was no explanation to whether the proposal was only to be confined to “major projects of national importance”, however defined.
As this newspaper asked: “What about all the myriad applications involving ODZ structures, which by their insidious, creeping encroachment on the countryside also cause huge harm to it? Are these to continue to be dealt with separately under the current flawed planning process which has so obviously failed to protect ODZ today?”
The devil of Busuttil’s seemingly attractive proposal lies in the detail, which his half-baked policy fails to address.
Winning office depends upon accomplishment and vision, not simply on the weakness of opponents. Busuttil currently relies on knee-jerk reactions to issues, helped enormously by an accident-prone government whose administrative and governance skills have been found severely wanting.
A structured series of comprehensive, wide-ranging policy reviews into every aspect of government are needed to show what Malta’s vision for the future is, and how Busuttil is going to achieve it. The current apologies pretending to pass for policy reviews will not do.