When a leader fails to inspire

I don’t know whether Joseph Muscat should be nicknamed the “Teflon King” (because, no matter how badly he fouls up, nothing seems to stick), or whether his moniker would more accurately be “The Comeback Kid”: because he always manages to regain his footing by pinpointing exactly the right issues which win him renewed support and almost surprised admiration from a specific lobby group.

What is definitely apparent is that, in stark contrast to Muscat, his political adversary PN leader Simon Busuttil, has still not managed to inspire his own supporters with the same kind of passion and loyalty which people look for in a leader. Nor has Busuttil managed to strike any of the right chords with middle-of-the road voters.

What is curious is that even when he did have an issue which seemed to galvanize a large portion of the population (the Citizenship for Sale scheme which was met with opposition by voters across the political spectrum), Busuttil ended up squandering what was basically a gift handed to him on a plate. The campaign against the Individual Investor Programme (IIP) was gaining momentum at a furious pace, but then spectacularly backfired through a series of tactical mistakes and overkill. Roberta Metsola’s and David Casa’s belittling of their own country at EU level went down very badly with many people, and the PN could not seem to make up its mind whether it was against the IIP in principle with no ifs or buts, or whether it was simply haggling over the details.

Even those who were not happy with the idea of selling our passports became more and more cynical about what the PN’s motives really were in their vociferous (yet constantly shifting) opposition against the IIP. As it turned out, their cynicism was justified with the recent news that the law firm of Ann Fenech (PN council president) was granted a license to act as an agent for potential applicants for the very scheme her own party had screamed its lungs out crusading against.

A YouTube video shows Muscat flatly saying he is against the rights of gays to adopt, but by turning around and including that very same clause in the Civil Unions Law last Monday, Muscat has shown that he is a Prime Minister “who listens”

Maybe I’m too straightforward for the Byzantine maze which is politics, but my motto has always been, you either oppose something in principle or you don’t. Or else, if you have mixed feelings about an issue, just say so right away so that if you change your mind, it doesn’t look so much like a hypocritical U-turn. I think most voters can respect a firm stand, but are wary of opportunism and this is where the contrast between the way the two leaders are being perceived is interesting.

While Busuttil has not been allowed to get away with changing his stance on the IIP, it seems to me that people are rather more forgiving towards Muscat’s change of heart about the right of a gay couple to apply to adopt a child. There is a YouTube video going round where Muscat flatly says he is against the rights of gays to adopt, and yet the gay lobby has come out in his defence, saying that by turning around and including that very same clause in the Civil Unions Law last Monday, Muscat has shown that he is a Prime Minister “who listens”. His critics, of course, have a slightly less complimentary way of describing him.

The point remains that the lacklustre Busuttil has not yet managed to grow into the kind of charismatic leader which the still fragmented Nationalist Party needs him to be. The disappointment is palpable from the online comments of those who are staunchly PN but who are also more liberal in their views: they cannot seem to relate to any decisions being taken by the present leadership. These are Nationalist supporters who feel uneasy with the confessional, conformist faction within their party, precisely because their own lives, and/or those of their close friends and relatives do not fall into the traditional ‘married with 2.5 children’ model.

This was precisely Claudette Buttigieg’s dilemma when she could not face the crowd at St George’s Square last Monday – how do you face friends you have known all your life and tell them that you cannot, after all, represent them as you had promised you would when they elected you? 

For Simon to then say that “Muscat failed in his objective to split the PN” was like pouring a barrel of salt into an open, festering wound. The caustic reaction to that was: “Thanks a lot Simon, so the party comes before people’s rights”.

Most voters can respect a firm stand, but are wary of opportunism and this is where the contrast between the way the two leaders are being perceived is interesting

The déjà vu in all this cannot be overlooked. It reminds me of the disarray, lack of direction and confusion which the Labour party found itself in when Alfred Sant lost the 2003 elections because he adamantly refused to accept the result of the EU referendum. In his case, he took his principles to an unnecessary extreme because he could easily have saved face by saying, “I still believe EU membership is not the best option but I will accept the will of the people”.

But he didn’t do that, and as a result there were many traditional Labour voters who did not buy into their own party’s fears of EU membership and were dismayed at Sant’s obstinacy. With a heavy heart many did not vote at all, or voted PN or AD. It took another loss at the polls in 2008 (because many Labour voters had still not forgiven Sant), for the Labour party to finally understand that it could not keep charging in one direction when the electorate was clearly showing the party that it was going against its wishes.

Now, I am not saying that Simon Busuttil has to become a Joseph Muscat Mark II, and espouse every liberal cause in sight. There is a large segment of the population which still hankers for Malta to retain its traditional, and yes conservative, roots which are inextricably linked to the teachings handed down by the Catholic Church. So if the PN continues to be the voice of this part of the country, that is fine and, in fact, it is necessary in a multi-faceted society.

However, it cannot (if it wants to be elected), alienate those who have broken away from their Catholic upbringing and who live their lives according to their own rules, by falsely portraying them as depraved heathens with no values or morals. Most liberal-minded individuals do not hold ultra-liberal views on every single issue anyway, but simply feel more strongly about some things than others.

If society is panicking because of the huge cultural changes which seem to be taking place at breakneck speed after having been stuck in a rut for over 50 years, then it is the job of our leaders to acknowledge all this with messages which are in tune with the public mood.

And that is why I think Simon is failing to inspire; because rather than being in synch, he always seems to be somehow out of step. He should be reassuring not just PN supporters, but everyone, that it is possible for Malta to move forward as an inclusive, tolerant society where there is space for individual freedoms without the whole country falling apart. Instead he seems to be feeding into the fears which always accompany change.

And as other leaders before him eventually learned to their own detriment, leading a party based on fear of the unknown just does not work.