Thank you Yorgen, grazzi ġaħan... no fix for the broken republic

Labour’s reaction to a witty Nationalist Party billboard mocking Edward Zammit Lewis for his disparaging reference to the ‘ġaħan Laburist’ in a WhatsApp chat with millionaire tycoon and murder suspect Yorgen Fenech was predictable: a billboard mocking the sanctimonious Jason Azzopardi (complete with halo) for a Hilton hotel freebie he solicited from the Tumas Group in 2017 when visiting Israel.

Crucially, although the freebie consisted in hotel accommodation solicited from Yorgen Fenech’s uncle Ray Fenech, the billboard depicts Azzopardi expressing his gratitude directly to Yorgen Fenech – suggesting that, Yorgen Fenech and his family’s financial empire are indeed one and the same thing.

The equivalence made in the billboard between Yorgen and his family prompts the question: if Yorgen and his family are the same thing, is Malta then still buying its energy from Yorgen Fenech (he is an Electrogas shareholder, and so is the Tumas Group...) and is any permit issued to the Tumas Group, a gift to the murder suspect himself?

Truly, the Tumas Group does have a history under both administrations of benefitting from changing goalposts, such as the handing-over of public land at a pittance by a PN-led administration. Indeed, one of the root cause for the sickness afflicting the Maltese republic is the deference to big moneyed interests, exposed in the pathetic deference shown in Zammit Lewis’ WhatsApp chats, and which despite all billboard references to Fenech, remains intact.

The PN as an alibi for Labour

In this case the most problematic aspect of Labour’s billboard is that it still seeks absolution for its deference to big business interests, by hitting out at Nationalist hypocrisy. Labour may bank on the fact that this tactic has worked in the past.

Back in 2016, Labour’s immediate reaction to Panamagate was to erect billboards highlighting Anne Fenech’s role in a legal firm which held directorships in Panama companies registered by clients. In hindsight, Labour would be in a very different position today had it expelled Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri at that stage rather than hitting out at PN hypocrisy. It would probably still have won its superlative electoral majorities but would have also gained an edge over the PN on the single issue which the Opposition could exploit.

Surely the PN’s actions when in government do provide Labour with the perfect alibi for its own nefarious sins. This is one major reason why the corruption issue failed to swing votes in 2017 when memories of PN misdeeds were still fresh. The reason for this is that pre-2013 Malta was far from a showcase for good governance and voters have a natural inclination to recoil from sanctimonious declarations from people who act otherwise when not under the radar.

In this instance Jason Azzopardi fits the bill perfectly as one of the foremost critics of Labour’s corrupt dealings and lawyer of the Caruana Galizia family, who had no qualms in asking a favour from the Tumas Group. And while the favour solicited by Azzopardi pre-dated news that Yorgen Fenech owned 17 Black (unlike Zammit Lewis’s intimacy with Yorgen on WhatsApp), Azzopardi’s actions simply contrasted with his self-styled crusading role. One may well say that had Azzopardi not existed, Labour would have had to invent him to deflect much more serious accusations.

Muscatian tactics in the age of Abela

Yet the tactics adopted under Muscat before 2021 may not be so effective today, not just in terms of winning elections but also in rallying the party behind Abela in his bid to distance himself from the Muscat era. The reality is that while under Muscat the party was deliberately covering up its own misdeeds, under Abela the party seems keen on starting a fresh page. And following a public inquiry which exposed a culture of impunity that gave people like Yorgen Fenech an impression they were omnipotent, one would have expected contrition and action rather than a tit-for-tat billboard shuffle.

Some would argue that with its 2017 majority intact, Labour can afford to ignore the problem, mock the PN by exposing its weakest link and still win big, also by banking on the inevitable own-goals from the other side. For as predictable as the PL’s billboard tit-for-tat, was the raising of stakes by former party leader Simon Busuttil who called for the resignation of the President in view of the inquiry’s attribution of collective responsibility to Muscat’s cabinet.

Busuttil’s declaration weighs heavily on a party which under Grech is at least trying to pick its battles in a more intelligent way. And while Zammit Lewis’s mockery of the Labour voter turned him in the perfect target, the austere and sober George Vella simply does not fit the bill. Surely Vella, like all Labour MPs with the exception of Evarist Bartolo, should have spoken out against Mizzi and Schembri in 2016, but purging anyone who was silent back then would mean decimating the Cabinet and the institutions. At this stage, to be consistent with this attribution of collective responsibility shared by Abela himself in his role as Muscat’s consultant, the PN’s only option is to call for the resignation of Abela and his cabinet and for a general election to be held now.

Yet the risk would be that the result would ultimately absolve Labour in its entirety as happened in 2017.

Jason Azzopardi had availed himself of a freebie for a Tel Aviv hotel stay at a Hilton hotel, courtesy of Tumas Group’s Ray Fenech

Mixed message to voters

By resorting to Muscat’s tried and tested tactic of absolving Labour’s misdeeds by constant reference to PN double-standards, the party is once again sending a mixed message to its voters and supporters. In doing so, it suggests that the enemy is not corruption itself but the hypocrisy on the other side. The reality is that back in 2016 the party would have been better served if its focus was in eradicating the cancer eating into Labour’s moral credentials, rather than engaging in petty tribal wars.

In this sense Labour’s response to the PN billboard may be its pound of flesh to supporters whose identity is shaped by puerile antipathy towards the other side. But it is this mentality in both parties which makes change impossible.

Simply put, ‘what smells bad on the other side smells good on my side’. In this sense it is no surprise that the message ends up enabling corruption by establishing Labour’s right to be as corrupt as the Nationalists were when in government.

Yet ultimately both parties are making a mockery of the electorate by engaging in a billboard war at this present juncture.

While one has to recognise that the PN has for once came up with a witty billboard which tempestuously latched onto Labour’s weakest link, the party seems increasingly reluctant to stand up to the hold of big business on the political class. One pertinent question the PN has to answer is where the money comes from for this premature start of the campaign, which has seen the party put on billboards and employing new gurus?

Instead the country would be in a much better state if parliament focuses on the root of the problem: the lack of a firewall between the political class and the business class. Not only has this contributed to corrupt deals, but also facilitated the capture of the institutions by officials, including members of the police force, who allegedly derailed investigations in the Caruana Galizia murder probe while enjoying friendships with the alleged mastermind.

But that would also mean radically reforming party financing laws and enacting a code of ethics, which makes it obligatory for MPs to declare any meeting or gifts from the business class.

The elusive second republic

Can we trust this responsibility to two political parties bred in a toxic system?

Ironically it was Joseph Muscat, the man who promised the birth of a second republic, who exposed the sickness of the first republic when he turned poachers into gamekeepers and which became an attempt by a clique rooted in politics, business and the criminal world, to capture the state and its institutions.

In such a context, the country may be better served if this task is devolved to an elected constituent assembly, whose independent members’ role is strictly restricted to political and constitutional reforms required for the birth of a second republic.

This will give the reform process democratic legitimacy, while divorcing it from electoral cycles determining voters’ choice of government. This may be no panacea, as political parties are bound to influence the composition of any elected body, but at least it would give the opportunity to the electorate to discuss reforms proposed by non-attached candidates in a process culminating in the approval of these reforms in a national referendum.