In many regards, 2014 will pit the two national leaders against each other like never before over the past seven months, as well as bring them face to face with their mirror in terms of individual performance. There will not be a quite moment.
Joseph Muscat will measure himself up as Prime Minister for his first full year. The early months following a change of government tend to see the new administration following up on the lines mapped out by the outgoing lot.
It has been like that more than ever before, with the Labour government adopting the 2013 Budget as presented by the Nationalists to avoid uncertainty.
It will now be singing off its own hymn sheet, implementing its own first budget, with its long list of promised deliverables.
Simon Busuttil too will measure himself up as Leader of the Opposition. So far, he has been faithfully following in his predecessor’s footsteps, other than increasing the already heavy dose of negativism coming from the Nationalist side. Being negative is easy. It does not hide the fact that the Opposition has nothing to be positive about.
The government could be and has been original on social legislation. The Opposition could only say No, Nay, Nyet.
That does not project it as an alternative government compiling a set of doable policies of its own. It does not exhibit Busuttil as a politician made of prime ministerial timber. He is the rowdiest boy in the classroom, sowing doubts whether he could ever become a good prefect.
The new year gives him the chance to try to change all that. The main confrontation between the political leaders will be the European Parliament elections to be held in May. The result is already being seen as a foregone conclusion. Labour achieved the feat of winning four seats out of six the last time around.
It was then in opposition, facing and criticising a government which was already beginning to look tired and divided. Today the boot is on the other foot. Labour has its record in office to defend, warts and all. Along the way it will have lost both votes and enthusiasm for change and newness.
A number of 2013 swingers are likely to stay away from the ballot. Turnout is usually below general election averages anyway. That will be the case in May, to Labour’s detriment this time.
The forecast result is a three-three representation, with Labour having a majority of the valid votes. The size of that majority will be compared to the mammoth surplus totted up by the Labour Party in March, which it will not get again.
Labour will have hard factors to ponder upon. Governing and pleasing the electorate are not necessarily complementary tasks. Interpreting the May out-turn will spur the government to check the extent to which it is succeding with its expected deliverables.
The main confrontation between the political leaders will be the European Parliament elections in May
The state of public health will be a major focal point for the government. The shine of reduced tariffs on electricity consumption from April onwards will not appear before the first bills at the new rates are issued. In any event, it will wear off. Public health is a daily occurrence affecting a changing but very substantial section of the people.
Election promises take time to come to fruition but there has to be tangible proof that the government is heading in the right direction. It is not a question of learning from its mistakes as much as keeping abreast of expectations raised in the election campaign and, anyway, felt by all those who use the services of the public health set-up.
Education too will be a focal point, with progress, inevitably slow, brought to the attention of the public with better public relations. PR, in fact, will be a challenge for the government which, surprisingly, is proving not to be very good at it.
The year will see how the Individual Investment Programme will be implemented. In early parallel with all the above will be the nomination of a new President in April.
Busuttil is already setting up the political stakes as he wants to see them. Since George Abela, a Labourite, was nominated by Lawrence Gonzi, Muscat is duty-bound to nominate a Nationalist, he insists.
That is undiluted rubbish, adding partisanship precisely where it should be removed. Abela had his well-known individual merits, but Gonzi did not appoint him for them. The ex-prime minister had won the election by a wafer-thin majority. He had to throw a sop to Cerberus, to make a move which suggested he was aware he represented a people divided as never before.
He did not consult Labour to do that. He simply informed the then Opposition leader, Muscat, of his choice, take it or leave it, in which case a Nationalist would be appointed. That did not represent judicious rotation.
It was a tactical move forced out of necessity. Muscat is in no way tied by it. That is not to say the nomination must reflect partisanship. The essential thing is not the political affiliation of the nominee. It is the qualities he/she can bring to bear to an institution which, far more than anything else, is a national symbol.
The Prime Minister should indeed break the mould, but not by being partisan either way. He should find a nominee who, arriving with calm stature, will grow into the job as Abela did.
It is more than time, I’d say, that we had a female President. She can come from the political ranks, both sides open as catchment areas, or from academia, the artistic or business world. It will not be an easy choice.
But then, what is easy in politics, whether in 2014 or in any other year?