Marlene Farrugia is too busy to lead a big party, too strong-willed to belong to a party she doesn’t lead, and too clever to imagine she stands any chance unless she belongs to one of the two big parties. Somehow the result is not half bad, and Farrugia is one of the sunnier spots in Maltese politics.
Which means that her dealings with the Nationalist Party matter. As I write, the country is in its third hour of Egrant-mania. Early days yet, but the PN’s fortunes may be about to change dramatically.
Konrad Mizzi’s brass neck, and the Prime Minister’s decision to stand by the Panama club, were bad. The thought of Marie Antoinette sitting on a stack of dirty Azeri cash is unspeakably so. If the Prime Minister cannot convince on the Egrant story, he may be out much sooner than we imagined. Given that the moviment is made in his image, the consequences of that are obvious.
My guess is that Egrant will prove a game changer, and that the PN is about to find itself eminently electable. Three hours ago Farrugia’s support seemed little more than a means to cushion defeat. Now it looks like something that could make all the difference.
It has been said that FarrugiaPN is not really a coalition. In politics, the word usually means two or more parties that come together in an alliance to form a government. Only Farrugia’s party is not a real political actor in its own right and cannot therefore be said to be in an alliance with anything.
What this is, is a sort of partnership between Farrugia and the PN. If that sounds like me and Roger Federer setting up a partnership for the advancement of tennis, it isn’t quite.
FarrugiaPN would be a Nationalist government with an opt-out clause – with a panic button, if you will
On the one hand, Farrugia’s is very much a one-woman show. The other people in her ‘party’ are about as individually recognisable as the members of a tank unit marching down the square in Pyongyang. If the Democratic Party is to attract any support at all, it will do so as il-partit ta’ Marlene. That also means that it can only be a serious contender on two electoral districts. Not much to contribute to the PN by way of partnership, then.
Besides, Maltese politics has invariably waved the finger at the intended virtue of the single transferable vote. People vote for parties first and individual candidates later. It is unlikely that Farrugia can bring a single vote to the PN, simply because the people who might vote for her would be inclined to vote Nationalist anyway.
That, however, is only part of the story. There are at least three good reasons why the Farrugia-PN partnership is not as ridiculous or lop-sided as it may seem. The first is Farrugia herself. She is resourceful in more ways than one, is a fairly eloquent speaker, and has altogether the right feel about her. Certainly she does not come across as some kind of recycled Franco Debono.
The point is that it cannot be a bad thing to have Farrugia on your side. Her cutting references to ‘Panama Labour’ and the ‘Panama Gang’ sound like the genuine article rather than rhetoric, and I can only imagine what sort of flak a certain long-distance swimmer has coming to her.
Second, Farrugia’s willingness to form a partnership is crucial to the PN’s luck with voter psychology. Because politics is all about association for mutual benefit, any heavily defeated party faces one giant problem: the fewer associates it appears to have, the less people want to be associated with it.
The thing the PN needs most is the sense, and appearance, that people are going back to it. Individuals like Farrugia serve as a kind of spectacle of return. They function as key protagonists in an ongoing parable of the lost sheep. Joseph Muscat made tremendous use of this device before the 2013 election.
The third reason why Farrugia matters is that she promises to be a kind of buffer, in the event of a PN government. There are many people who would vote Nationalist but who cannot bring themselves to trust the party just yet. FarrugiaPN would be a Nationalist government with an opt-out clause – with a panic button, if you will. She has, in fact, said herself that she would keep a Nationalist government ‘in check’.
Now normally that’s a recipe for disaster. The last thing a party in government needs is a member who cannot be relied on to toe the line at all times. This time, however, the prospect may work to the PN’s advantage. “Vote Marlene, get Simon with a thorn in his side” would make an excellent campaign slogan.
The big story is not Marlene Farrugia. It is Michelle Muscat and the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. Except it is likely that the two will dovetail substantially in the coming weeks. As the Egrant story unfolds, the Prime Minister may well find himself facing his worst nightmare: an exodus of associates and partners, spearheaded by Farrugia, to the Panama-free party. Movimenti were never going to be a Labour monopoly.
mafalzon@hotmail.com