Politics dealt Simon Busuttil a poor hand. Four years ago when he became leader of the Opposition, he inherited a political, organisational and financial mess.
He has had to fight a battle on three fronts. He had to offer inspirational leadership to a party reeling from a historic defeat. He had to lift the party machine out of bankruptcy. And he had to ensure it was capable of creating election-winning policies.
Given the breakdown of party discipline that marked the last years of the Gonzi administration, it was necessary in conditions of such disarray for Busuttil to reinvigorate his party and to win back the trust not just of core supporters but of the country as a whole.
To do so has meant reaching out to those who will always be there for PN come hell or high water, but also to the election-winning “switchers” who will cast their votes untroubled by blind party allegiance. Has he succeeded?
Busuttil has healed the wounds that divided the party between 2011 and 2013. He has re-instilled the desire for power. He has partially rebuilt the party machine and staved off bankruptcy, though the db Group-gate affair has thrown doubts on the integrity of his party funding and his ability to break the cycle of dependence on big business.
As to the development of new policies, there have been encouraging signs of progress – or, rather, work in progress –will on good governance and on the environment.
But the real test of the last four years has been how Busuttil has exercised his leadership nationally. A leader must have the force of character to inspire others to follow him with confidence. Force of character comes from knowing what a leader wants to do and having the determination and personality to do it. This involves willpower and conviction, and showing the right judgment in reaching good decisions – especially unpopular or difficult decisions.
Busuttil is a decent and intelligent man. His sincerity and selflessness are not in doubt. He appears to have the personal trust of the people he leads - though in factional Nationalist politics this is never what it seems.
But there have been a number of decisions in the last four years that must cast doubt over his judgment and strength of character to lead a deeply polarised country like Malta with its messy and intrinsically corrupt daily politics.
Two examples of his decision-making will suffice. In the matter of the Civil Unions Bill, Busuttil allowed himself to be sucked into an internal party-political storm. The decision for the PN to abstain – the weakest position he could have adopted – was caused by divided forces within his party which he was unable to bring to heel.
On the abrogative referendum on spring hunting, he meekly followed Muscat in supporting the hunters, instead of opposing them (he is personally against spring hunting). Like the decision on civil unions, it made no moral or political sense but simply displayed weakness.
The courage to make a decision is an absolute must in a leader. He fluffed both those opportunities. Under the pressure that is inevitable in frontline politics, he did not flourish. He cracked. Instead of demonstrating firmness and sure-footedness, he revealed inexperience and poor instinct.
Moreover, he has shown himself ready to follow any popular trend started by others – whether it was reaction to abuse of ODZ, led by Front ODZ, or even the tittle-tattle put about by a mere blogger.
In the current political frenzy over Panamagate and Egrant-gate, it is hypocritical of PN apologists to ignore Oilgate just four years ago, which was a scandal involving several million euros of taxpayers’ money as well as money laundering. Or what we learnt after the last general election about a whole generation of Nationalist ministers who, suspiciously, for whatever reasons, had money stashed away in Swiss bank accounts which had not been declared to the taxman. And two other former Nationalist ministers who, allegedly, were involved in malpractice.
I pose this reminder of what happened just four years ago because Busuttil, as leader of the Opposition, has made “corruption” and principled leadership the centrepiece of his campaign to oust Muscat. He has turned up the volume with accusations that have further deepened political polarisation in Malta.
Instead of adopting a circumspect approach on Panamagate and Egrant-gate – as most grown-up politicians would do – (and, as a lawyer, respecting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) he has embraced the enthusiastic gullibility of consumers of unsubstantiated news, thus allowing the very concept of objective truth to be sidelined.
But the real tragedy is that he has levelled all his accusations on the basis of what an individual not known for her impartiality has alleged. In the case of Egrant, it has been based, thus far, only on circumstantial evidence. The blogger may of course be proved right, but one would have thought that a less impetuous Opposition leader would have been keen to establish the facts before launching into accusations of corruption based solely on circumstantial evidence. He has very belatedly done the responsible thing with the alleged Schembri passports payments.
He has portrayed his opponent, Muscat, not as a person with whom he disagrees on policy, but as a villain. He has taken a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book, who called Hilary Clinton “a criminal”. The language of Busuttil’s discourse has been increasingly shrill, inflammatory and unstatesmanlike.
Is Busuttil a lightweight? Or are there hidden strengths which commentators like me have missed? For those of us whose job is merely to offer food for thought, the jury is still out. Would Busuttil confront construction magnates who flouted the planning law with impunity? That he has never chosen to address the so-called “Polidano Question” speaks volumes about his future approach to good governance.
In terms of character – and Malta is looking desperately for a man of character to be its prime minister – Busuttil comes across as somebody who is prepared to jump on any bandwagon which may be rolling. That he seems to be hostage to somebody whose credibility is hugely suspect because of her anti-Labour tunnel vision does not deter him.
Political leadership at any level – though especially at national level – is about decision, willpower and judgement. The result of the Maltese elections in 10 days’ time will turn essentially on alleged “corruption” versus continued economic prosperity.
But overridingly, it will be about the qualities of Malta’s next Prime Minister. It will be about Busuttil’s and Muscat’s characters.
Next week: The verdict