Governing by listening… and by failing on spin

It may come as a surprise, but partisan bickering is not just a Maltese pastime. At least on the level of how parties love to bicker and accuse each other – mostly to spin the interminably spun – the PN and PL are no worse than the Tories and Labour in Britain, or the Democrats and Republicans in the US. The only difference is found in the degree by which party bickering is relayed to the people, where in Malta’s case there seems to be more of an inclination for some to act as a “populace” which in odd cases is not a pretty sight.

Be that as it may be, many seem to enjoy entertaining themselves by a political scenario where image and substance are often conflated, and where one often loses sight of what is actually at stake.  

This may sound tragic to some, especially when politics are taken too seriously and people start hating each other simply because of party allegiance. However this also turns into a farce when spin falls foul of what it is supposed to do – i.e. sustain the party’s image.

When spin fails

When spin turns onto itself, one somehow loses sight of who is supposed to be saying what and who is accusing whom. This is how it feels over the recent spate of argument over the presumed deadlines that were set for the reform in energy production with the Delimara power station being switched to gas.

However, before one misunderstands where I am coming from, here I want to take exception to the spin on both sides while I state that on the matter of getting things done with regards to a clean, sustainable and efficient energy, I am with the Prime Minister. By this I mean that I would suggest that Dr Muscat sticks to his plans and his vision and take his own spin-doctors (whoever they may be) with more than a pinch of salt.

Beyond partisan hysteria and the opportunity for the usual tit for tat, I’d rather this administration gets it right and delivers an energy package that works for many years to come.

The bickering over which deadline the promise of an efficient, clean and cheaper energy plan was supposed to rest is pretty much jaundiced by the usual partisan motives that, actually, help no one. We know the various stories and various interpretations: the Opposition says that the PM failed to meet his deadline because the switch over to gas has now been delayed. On the other hand, government is insisting that the deadline for cheaper electricity is on course, though the gas plant will have to take a bit more time.

What matters most here?

Beyond partisan hysteria and the opportunity for the usual tit for tat, I’d rather this administration gets it right and delivers an energy package that works for many years to come. I am not interested in meeting fictitious deadlines set by spin-doctors. More than partaking in the cheap points traded between the respective political parties, we should be more interested in seeing that government delivers a system that works (a) for the environment in terms of a clean energy (b) for the country in terms of an efficient power grid and (c) for the consumer in terms of lower bills. Why should it matter if this takes a bit more time?

What do the detractors want? That the government meets a presumed deadline and then delivers a botched job? If the ultimate goal is reached, then Labour’s promise would not only be delivered but it will make up for what is a situation where low salaries have to put up with the inevitability of a higher cost of living. These are realities that cannot be dodged by any government of whatever conviction.

Doing nothing was never an option because in terms of energy, this Labour administration inherited what was evidently a mess, and more so a mess that could never deliver what it supposedly promised because the system was technically inefficient and financially unsustainable. Enemalta was bust and more so, the bills were much higher than Maltese society could sustain in terms of an imbalance between what people get every month in their pay cheque and what they can spend in utilities.

As it happens, I do not agree with those who argue that previous Nationalist administrations were an absolute disaster and that this government has all the answers for a perfect society. Neither do I have any sympathy for the Nationalist opposition, which every now and then wakes up from its unfortunate slumber and occasionally discovers that there is poverty in Malta, and that inequity has grown.

Social inequality was there long before Joseph Muscat became Prime Minister. This was aggravated by high utility bills that were caused by an inefficient system run by an energy company losing money by the minute. Reports like the one delivered by Caritas during the last years of Lawrence Gonzi’s government cannot be ignored or dismissed as Labour propaganda. NGOs working with the disadvantaged and the mostly forgotten sections of the population have been saying the same thing for many years: the infrastructure on which we could sustain an equitable and just society has long been found wanting.

Listening beyond the spin

Now when I see posters or slogans celebrating “A government that listens”, I cringe. I do so not because I do not believe that a government can indeed listen, but because by stating this in such a pompous way it is basically telling people not to believe that its government is really listening. In other words, the spin often comes in the way and when governments get it right, they have to make excuses because they need to balance their own spin with reality.

So does Joseph Muscat’s government listen or is it the victim of its own spin? I do believe that often Muscat’s government falls victim of its own spin. However there are also good examples where Muscat’s government has ditched its own spin and openly admitted in getting certain things wrong and went on to change its course. And to me that is a good thing and it should be admired.

The latest temporary ban on hunting was another good move, where, as the NGOs concerned with wild life have confirmed, illegalities in hunting came down by a good percentage.

For example, whether one agrees with the IIP (passports-for-money) scheme or not, Muscat’s government changed its course several times until it reached consensus. Now the opposition would invariably argue that Muscat was told off by the European Parliament and was humiliated. But the fact is that Muscat listened to both Maltese opinion and what the EP had to say, and to his credit he adjusted what was deemed to be contentious.

Another good example of a government admitting that it did not get things quite right from the start is the recent change of tack on local elections. Related to this is a move to have a referendum on hunting. Whether it is too optimistic to say that such a referendum is indeed a fait accompli is another matter. However the latest temporary ban on hunting was another good move, where, as the NGOs concerned with wild life have confirmed, illegalities in hunting came down by a good percentage.

In contrast to what was evidently bad spin, these are examples where Muscat decided to move beyond his preoccupation with image, was not afraid to admit mistakes, and true to his word, he changed direction.

While one is more inclined to remain cautious, if not pessimistic when it comes to congratulate the political class, one cannot ignore the fact that in many ways, Malta’s lively discussion of political matters sometimes has the desired effect. This might be dwarfed by the tribal mentality that still forces itself across the political landscape. However there are some aspects in politics where debate amongst people does prompt politicians to listen and where things do change direction for the better. The more we get of this the less politicians are likely to yield to populist temptations and believe their own spin.