A French farce: Malta’s strange politics of abdication

For those who care for Maltese politics in a meaningful rather than partisan way, it is painful to see how only a small pool of talented individuals seem to be interested in leading.

Yet, even those deemed to be promising, appear to be either hesitant or all too frequently prefer to be selectively engaged in a strange politics of abdication.

It’s not easy to show one’s mettle in a polity which is constantly challenged by suspicions of corruption amidst a culture of expectations mired by patronage and clientelism, not to mention a sense of omertà and a risk of violence. Except for those who see politics as an opportunity for self-betterment, even with all the realistic and pragmatic expectations that could be mustered, anyone aspiring to contribute and lead is right to feel helpless, if not intimidated.

This creates a general sense of impasse. It is egged on by a partisan-relativist reasoning, where a logic of tribal binaries expedites itself on what ultimately remains a colonial mindset. Some argue that we are “too small to do anything” and so we remain “neutral”. Others see Malta as the centre of God’s own universe, the alpha and omega of political logic, where the measure is a sense of “us” beyond which we cannot move, let alone develop a sensible perspective that seeks out that desirable middle ground between “us” and the “world”. 

Tribal folk tales in a French farce

In a scenario reminiscent of many Maltese villages where St Mary is pitted against The Virgin, the desire to have a contest between Robert and Roberta has recently come to its latest cycle of disappointment. Once more, Roberta Metsola refused to take the challenge (some say bait) of Nationalist leadership. This leaves Robert Abela and his Labour acolytes wondering who will next play the role after Bernard Grech exited the stage.

Maltese politics often look like a French farce, deliberately set up to rekindle what in effect is a dwindling audience with almost a third of the voters not intent on voting at all. Apart from all the noise and barbs traded between the two political tribes, what strikes the frustrated observer is the sense of abdication by which partisan priorities are set on both sides and how anything is turned into an opportunity to distract voters’ attention from what actually matters.

The story of Roberta “the Europeanist” and Robert “the provincial nationalist” is clearly a folk tale. It is spun and sustained to please those who want to hold onto the notion that the PN and PL are, like the devotees of St Mary and the Virgin, two distinct tribes. Yet, even when such manufactured contrasts suit partisan interests, there are clear policies that Roberta and Robert share, as proven by the way they vote and support EU policy on almost anything, and on which, back home, they present themselves as harsh antagonists.

Roberta’s choice and Robert’s heel

At the risk of sounding too prosaic, Roberta’s choice recalls that of Hobson’s. In view of her latest decision, no one should be blamed for concluding that Metsola’s interest in taking her party out of the wilderness is diminishing while at the same time she appears to ask of her Nationalist faithful to hold onto her promise of hope. She seems to be telling them: “Maybe one day the PN’s ambitions will prevail, but only after my duties in the European Parliament are fulfilled.”

It is up to voters to decide whether Metsola’s choice amounts to a form of arrogance or indeed a sense of global responsibility. However, with this being the fourth leadership contest since the PN lost power, with the PL holding a significant lead, this sounds like Hobson’s choice: one made between nothing and nought.

If Roberta’s choice reminds us of Hobson, Robert’s heel could, with an equal risk of the prosaic, remind us of Achilles. This has nothing to do with his personal predilection for bodily health and awareness. In the latest polls, Abela appears to be unassailable, just like Achilles, but one wonders where is his weak point? There must be an Achilles heel in Robert Abela’s political trajectory.

Those who support Abela see him as being pragmatic. On the other hand, his critics, including those to his left, often see him as trying to please everyone and ultimately no one. His ambiguous reticence over Gaza and Ukraine are good examples. Locally, Abela is also seen as indulging in U-turns as in the case with the Sofia inquiry and the latest twists on the development of Manoel Island.

To abdicate or decide?

The attitude taken by the Nationalist camp (at least from the optics that one gets through Metsola’s decisions) is that: (a) the European sphere is far more important than the “local” one—giving the impression that Malta is less of a reality than the EU; and (b) she will only lead a party that is government-ready, which gives the impression that this is a process of automatic succession; more like a monarchy than a democracy.

It is not surprising then, that the notion one gets from the PN is that some still think they are entitled to power, almost by cultural edict, as if, with the right nationalist leader, Malta will go back to the “good old days” of “natural governance”. A myth, really, which is reminiscent of the nation, family and tradition—a notion that jars with 21st century Maltese society, ironically given birth by no one less than the Christian Democrat Eddie Fenech Adami.

In contrast, Labour is often seen as shifting ground according to what looks good. If Roberta’s choice is like Hobson’s, Robert’s heel is found in what appears to be a form of ambiguous decision-making.

It seems that in both camps, political leadership remains vulnerable to a sense of abdication of responsibility and thereby risk. One cannot expect leaders to agree with everyone, nor should they express themselves in such a manner that they become authoritarian and monarchic.

However, it is fair to expect from leaders a degree of consistency that is tempered, yes with pragmatism, but where a country’s democracy deserves a sense of direction. What sense of direction would one gain from two grand parties which cannot offer a sense of consistency even in how they choose to accuse each other of inconsistency?