Can Muscat speak of elitism when he is building his own establishment?

In the wake of Brexit, Joseph Muscat has repeatedly attacked Simon Busuttil for being part of an establishment and the “political elite”.

The PN, which ran the country for 25 years, developed a close relationship with a number of businesses, professional groups and opinion-makers. Historically it is associated with the legal profession, which has its own incestuous relationship with big business.

In many ways Muscat’s own drive to secularise Malta has rocked part of the Maltese establishment, to the extent that some of its most conservative elements are coming out of the woodworks with a world view reminiscent of the 1920s. Muscat’s claim to reformism was strengthened by the passing of bills on party financing and the reform of judicial appointments.

But while Muscat may be partly right in depicting his adversaries as being close to certain vested interests, one can be extremely sceptical of politicians who lash out at abstract concepts like “the establishment” (a very flexible term which can be comfortably used by both the far left and right), instead of addressing inequalities of power and class.

No wonder Nigel Farage, a stockbroker by profession, would also lash out against “the British establishment” while pandering to all its prejudices; Silvio Berlusconi blamed “elitist politicians” for putting spokes in the wheels of his government; even Erdogan in Turkey regularly projects his party as a movement against “Kemalist establishment”; and one of the most bizarre features of modern politics is seeing fat cats like Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump lash out against what they dub the political establishment.

Businesses who found no favour under the previous administration now have a listening ear in Muscat: many harbour ambitions to join a new establishment

Now Muscat does not share any ideological affinity with these figures, but even he comes across as an overbearing prime minister bent on creating a self-serving system aimed of political patronage: some of the results he accomplished in eth past years changed the country for the better, but in other ways he has centralised power in his hands and his closest collaborators.

‘Establishment’ and ‘elite’ are terms flexible enough to appeal to anyone who feels excluded from a particular circle. Emergent business interests and lobbies today may claim they feel excluded from a restricted circle of the traditional establishment, and so welcome inclusion in a new wider circle. Take for example those businesses who found no favour under the previous administration and now have a listening ear in Muscat: many harbour ambitions to join a new establishment.

Typically, governments inevitably end up disappointing those who do not get their way, and Labour will inevitably face accusations of oligarchy by those who feel left out.

So what about Muscat’s own relationship with the establishment? Can he even use such a term when retained a minister and chief of staff now exposed by the Panama Papers? Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri are certainly not part of some old school or traditional ruling class; but their actions, make no mistake, are part of an aspiration to be part of that kind of global elite that makes full use of tax havens like the British Virgin Islands and Panama.

Muscat himself holds the global elite in very high regard, many of them purveyors of citizenship schemes and exploiters of fiscal loopholes in other countries. His ‘anti-elitism’ is even more bizarre when considering that he pitted the publicly-owned University of Malta against the private university Sadeen wants built at Zonqor Point.

So Muscat’s alleged aversion to traditional and conservative elites, seems equally matched with a devotion towards global capitalism, which itself requires local intermediaries, people at ease in a carefree environment where business sits down with politics.

It is this kind of climate that eventually creates a new establishment.

Muscat himself holds the global elite in very high regard, many of them purveyors of citizenship schemes and exploiters of fiscal loopholes in other countries

Remember that little has changed between Muscat’s political class and big business anyway. He is not enthusiastic about raising minimum wage; he did not reverse tax cuts for the well-off introduced by the previous Gonzi administration; on planning he panders to the development lobby and his high-rise policies are tailor-made for big business; and on energy, he fostered dependence on big business groups.

Muscat’s legacy may well leave its mark, physically, on the Maltese landscape. Which is why his anti-elitist claim backfires as reality exposes increasingly visible contradictions in the pro-business politician who pits himself against an abstract establishment.

Simon Busuttil leads a party that appears snubbed by powerful lobbies who prefer investing on Muscat’s winning horse. So Muscat’s attack on the PN’s elitism may be ill timed. The PN only became electable in the late 1970s after reinventing itself as a mass democratic party which discarded its elitist tag and showed a readiness to take on vested business interests. Muscat is no political novice. He could be pre-empting one of his major weaknesses that the Opposition will exploit: a growing perception that after just three years in power, his government is creating a new establishment.