Same economic model, limited choice: Who is the better manager?

Abela: Stability, adaptation, and protective continuity

Prime Minister Robert Abela, interviewed last week on Xtra, was asked what he would say to people who have become disillusioned with politics. He responded that the next election “will decide what happens when you flick a switch to turn on the light or when you go to fill up your car.”

Abela’s framing rests on what might be described as a ‘safe pair of hands in an imperfect world’ narrative. His rhetoric consistently leans on Malta’s economic resilience, often pointing to growth, employment, and fiscal measures as evidence that the current model—however flawed—works.

But this is not just hot air. Abela’s appeal hinges on his successful management of the pandemic, inflation triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a decade of stability in fuel prices.

In recent interventions, he also stressed that government must keep listening and adapting, particularly on sensitive issues such as mass transportation, planning and open spaces, signalling responsiveness without conceding systemic failure.

The subtext is clear—the system may not be perfect, but it delivers, and in a volatile international environment, that matters more than experimentation. Abela has repeatedly framed global instability as justification for continuity, arguing in essence that Malta needs experienced management rather than risk. This positioning aligns with a broader Labour narrative that the country requires stability and direction in uncertain times.

However, this message is increasingly double-edged. While it reassures, it also reflects a government that is respected more than loved. The emphasis on competence rather than inspiration suggests an awareness of voter fatigue and disenchantment.  

It was this awareness which led to major U-turns on Manoel Island, which has been reclaimed back by the state, and more recent steps to curtail abuse in the tourist accommodation sector.

Abela’s acknowledgement that policies need adjustment, captured in the words “we listen and correct where needed”, is an attempt to balance change with continuity. Yet this adaptive framing risks reinforcing the perception that problems are being managed, not solved.

Borg: credibility, restraint, and the burden of plausibility

By contrast, PN leader Alex Borg has attempted to position the Nationalist Party as a “government in waiting”, repeatedly insisting that the party must act—and be seen—as ready to govern. His messaging stresses responsibility and moderation. Change is framed not as rupture but as restoration of trust and better governance. Borg has argued that the PN must be “credible” and capable of winning, not merely narrowing the gap.

This is a deliberate departure from past oppositional rhetoric. Borg has also adopted a notably restrained tone, even acknowledging when government measures are positive— “where it is good, we will say it is good”—in an effort to project seriousness and maturity. The narrative is one of responsible change, aimed at voters who are dissatisfied but risk-averse, especially in an increasingly turbulent world.

The result is a narrative that can appear caught between reassurance and muted anger—critical of government shortcomings but reluctant to articulate a disruptive break.  Moreover, Borg’s framing tends to downplay international turbulence, as he did on Sunday when saying “tell me what Malta, a neutral country, has to do with it [the war in Iran],” focusing instead on domestic governance.

While this counters the government’s narrative which uses the international climate to reinforce its role as a tried and tested manager, by downplaying very real external threats, it risks amplifying fears that the PN is amateurish.

Moreover, this approach is constrained by structural realities. The PN’s challenge is not simply to propose alternatives but to overcome a widespread perception that Labour’s victory is inevitable.

Borg’s narrative hinges on persuading voters that the PN is not an eternal loser but a potential winner which is ready to govern. And the quickest path to power is to promise continuity on key policies like subsidising fuel and electricity, thus neutralising one of the PL’s most potent weapons.

But this paradoxically raises the question: Why opt for a copycat when the original is still delivering on the basics and even more so why opt for change, at such a critical international juncture?

Convergence: Competing logic of change and continuity

The interplay between these narratives reveals a deeper convergence. In short, any government elected after the next election will be one which relies on revenue derived from economic growth generated by the private sector to sustain welfare, subsidies and capital expenditure.

This convergence creates a political environment in which policy difference is muted, and the campaign becomes less about competing futures than about competing levels of trust in who can best manage the present.

For Labour, the advantage lies in incumbency and a track record—however contested. For the PN, the challenge is to translate dissatisfaction into belief that an alternative is viable.  To do this Borg has to project the PN as a Labour-lite but less sleazy party. Whether voters buy it is another matter.

The missing electorate: Younger, educated, and disengaged

Young, educated and disengaged

Sure, Labour starts as a clear favourite in a contest where incumbency and successful economic management give it the aura of a natural party of government. It is no wonder that Abela’s rhetoric is reminiscent of former PN administrations, particularly that of the Gonzi administration which coined the “safe pair of hands” narrative before the 2008 general election.

Still, there is one major unpredictable variable which leaves Abela and Borg guessing: The cohort of younger, more educated voters who remain detached from both narratives, which according to surveys is the most inclined not to vote, but which both hope to rally during the next weeks of campaigning.

This group is not homogeneous. Some are indifferent, disengaged from a system which they do not even question. Others are actively disillusioned, seeking more radical change—particularly on governance, environment, and quality of life.  Some reject cosmopolitan Malta, others embrace it with open arms.

For these voters, Abela’s narrative may feel technocratic and uninspiring, even if it offers material reassurance. Borg’s, meanwhile, risks appearing insufficiently ambitious, constrained by the need to appear safe and credible.

This is where smaller players like ADPD and Momentum enter the frame. While unlikely to threaten the two-party structure directly, they articulate strands of discontent that neither major party fully captures—environmental urgency, systemic reform, and a break from entrenched political culture.

Yet they have so far lacked one essential ingredient—a sizeable and visible crowd of enthusiastic supporters who carry an uplifting and contagious message of hope akin to successful campaigns by the likes of Democrat Zoran Mamdani in New York and Green Party leader Zack Polanski in the UK. Instead, third parties look like prophets in the wilderness.

At the same time, Labour has sought to retain parts of this demographic through selectively liberal and aspirational policies, which broaden its appeal beyond its traditional base. This also gives it a natural advantage with those voters who grew up in the brave new Malta created by Labour, one which is more cosmopolitan, liberal, and where boundaries on topics like abortion, sexuality and drug laws, can be pushed.

In contrast, the perception of the PN as a conservative force further complicates its appeal with Borg always forced to run with the hares while chasing with the hounds.

Moreover, even in those areas like land use where Labour has failed voters, the PN is constrained by fear of losing the support of those who benefit from current policies.

Case study: Planning reform and NGO demands

Activists protesting as part of Ġustizzja għal Artna campaign (Photo: Jade Bezzina/MaltaToday)

A concise illustration of these dynamics emerged in reactions to the four planning-reform demands advanced by NGOs under the Ġustizzja għal Artna campaign led by Moviment Graffitti. The latter, despite not being a political party, is one of the few movements capable of mobilising thousands of people in the streets to demand change.

Their proposals this time around included an end to the sanctioning of illegalities in ODZ areas and the re-inclusion of land added to the development zone in 2006 to the ODZ.

Doorstepped in front of parliament, Borg adopted a cautious, boundary-setting tone. While not dismissing NGO concerns, he avoided endorsing the proposals outright, stressing the distinction between activism and governance. “We are in the final touches of our manifesto… Our proposals will not divide the two but bring them together,” he said, adding that the PN “is not an NGO and must focus on workable policies.”

This response mirrors his broader narrative—absorbing public concern but translating it into governability and balance, reinforcing the image of a responsible alternative rather than a protest vehicle. But another reading is that he is too scared of confronting the developers’ lobby. In this case, reassuring developers’ fear of discontinuity neutralises any zeal for meaningful reform.

Abela, responding separately during Xtra, also emphasised the need for convergence between environmentalists and developers on planning reforms, projecting himself as a neutral arbiter.

Abela says that now government better understands both activists’ and developers’ stances on planning reforms, but noted that there is still no convergence from their end. The prime minister says that it is “very difficult” for everyone to be content with the conclusion of the planning reform saga. He added that should the saga drag on until after the next election, convergence between different interests will still be the priority in this regard.

Substance: A campaign of constrained choices

The emerging pre-electoral landscape is defined by low-voltage competition between continuity and cautious change. The rhetoric is already charged and will become more intense. But when it comes to substance, the differences are minor.  

Abela offers stability in an uncertain world, acknowledging imperfections while promising to manage them. Borg offers renewal without risk, seeking to rebuild trust while avoiding alarm among dominant elites. But the question Borg finds hard to answer is why should voters take any risk if nothing major is at stake.

In the context of such a limited choice the decisive question is not which narrative is more compelling in abstract terms, but which feels more plausible to voters.

If the perception of Labour’s inevitability holds, Borg’s message will struggle to convert dissatisfaction into votes. Borg’s bet was to project himself as a winner. The gamble paid off in galvanising his core vote. But this approach is increasingly tested by polls confirming Labour’s comfortable lead. 

For now, both leaders are speaking to an electorate that is wary of disruption yet increasingly conscious of the limits of the status quo. The outcome may hinge on whether reassurance alone is enough—or whether a more compelling vision of change finally breaks through, even if the odds remain stacked in favour of the incumbent who is after all the devil, we all know.