[ANALYSIS] Can the PN really become a centre-left party?

Echoing post-war Italian Christian Democratic leader Alcide De Gasperi, Mario de Marco envisions a centre-left future for his party. But how far left can the PN go without parting from its centre right identity? asks JAMES DEBONO

Alcide De Gasperi (above) echoed by Mario de Marco. Top right: Guido de Marco shakes hands with Eddie Fenech Adami and (bottom right) Austin Gatt (left) and Lawrence Gonzi.
Alcide De Gasperi (above) echoed by Mario de Marco. Top right: Guido de Marco shakes hands with Eddie Fenech Adami and (bottom right) Austin Gatt (left) and Lawrence Gonzi.

Just as Joseph Muscat’s Labour re-invented itself as an odd but effective ideological cocktail combining liberal, socialist, neoliberal, Third Way and even nationalistic values, there is no rule preventing the PN from re-inventing itself as a centre-left party.

Muscat’s drift to the centre-right is rooted in certain ideological anomalies: like Dom Mintoff’s nationalist narrative, which actively promoted ‘native’ capitalism, and Alfred Sant’s Blairite rhetoric of the 1990s and euro-scepticism in the early noughties.

PN deputy leader Mario de Marco’s centre-left proposal is rooted in his party’s endorsement of the welfare state after 1977. Both parties posture themselves to appeal to different categories of voters.

The PN tends to be more responsive to the post-materialist values of a category of its voters that is more sensitive to environmental issues, less inclined to nationalism on migration, and generally less authoritarian and devoted to the party leader: three characteristics common among centre-left voters In Western Europe.

On the other hand, the machismo of Labour leaders resonates with a populist appeal which can shift from left to right according to the whims of the leader.

And in both cases, the ideological shifts, although real, do not come without contradictions.

Mario de Marco - opened a debate in his party on its ideological identity
Mario de Marco - opened a debate in his party on its ideological identity

Playing to the left and right

For example, Muscat’s very real shift to the right on various issues such as the privatisation of energy, is not reflected in various areas of social policy and public expenditure, where the role of the state as a driving force is still affirmed. In this way the PL in its first two years in office has not only liberalised social norms through revolutionary steps like the introduction of civil unions; but it has also introduced new universal social services like free childcare. Therefore, categorising Labour as a right-wing party as de Marco alleged, is not correct.

In the PN’s case, de Marco qualifies the shift to the left on the environment and workers’ rights with a generic commitment to a “liberal economy”, whatever that means. For while one can unfurl the banner of economic liberalism from the liberal left in defence of a social market economy against crony capitalism, one can also use economic liberalism as a justification for weakening environmental and social restraints.

On the environment, while the PN can boast having conceived the first planning laws in the 1960s and introducing a Structure Plan in 1992, it carries the legacy of the 2006 building zones’ extension and it was competition from Alternattiva Demokratika (which shares the same voting base) that kept the party on its toes on this issue.

Ironically, with the exception of the party’s obscurantist stance against any reference to abortion in the European Parliament – which isolates it even from the European People’s Party’s mainstream – it is the transformation into a more socially liberal party which is proving to be the easiest for the PN. Not only do traditionalists have nowhere else to go, but the present party leader hails from the party’s more liberal wing, making the transformation easier.

It would also seem that the civil unions debacle on the eve of the MEP elections reinforced Busuttil’s hand in the party; and the transformation of the Catholic Church under Pope Francis makes the transformation even easier.

Still the party remains largely a follower rather than a leader when it comes to civil rights. It even lost an opportunity in speaking up for the right of children of migrants to be granted citizenship during the debate on Muscat’s passport scheme.

One clear instance where the PN is more centre-right than centre-left is its fiscal policy, which has consistently been in favour of tax cuts and its aversion to subsidies for public services like public transport.

Ironically the PL has caught up with the PN on tax cuts, but still seems keen on government spending on matters like childcare. The neoliberal sale of citizenship is probably the pivot for this balancing act. This is reminiscent of the early 1990s when Eddie Fenech Adami’s first administration also managed to reduce the maximum tax rate from 50% to 35%, while still strengthening the welfare state, thanks to economic growth and a disregard for rising deficits and public debt.

Ultimately in a two-party system it is inevitable that both parties seek to fill niches where they can outmanoeuvre each other. But if not framed in a coherent narrative such pandering to different interest groups may ultimately backfire when the chickens come back home to roost.

Simon Busuttil – his gamble on ‘honesty’ comes too close to the party’s last murky years in government
Simon Busuttil – his gamble on ‘honesty’ comes too close to the party’s last murky years in government

The new PN identity

What is positive is that de Marco has opened a debate in his party on its ideological identity. It is not clear how this debate, along with others like that on political appointments and whether Malta should have a full time parliament, will be followed up by the PN. Parties lack structures for debate. Neither do they have organised groups representing different strands of opinion.

No such debate was conducted in Labour before it embarked on controversial policies such as the selling of passports and the privatisation of energy. Even in Opposition the PL’s transformation into a liberal party was conducted without much internal debate, to the extent that the party did not even take a stance on divorce while its leader actively backed the ‘yes’ campaign. 

The challenge for the PN is to conduct an authentic, open debate which finds common ground among its various strands while leaving room for diversity. It remains a question whether Simon Busuttil wants to emulate Muscat’s choreographed presidentialism, or whether he sees himself as leader of a more real but more complicated coalition which may include different movements, ideological currents and (if he really has a more Europeanised disposition) parties.

But more important than assembling a coalition is providing a narrative which is credible and that appeals to the sum of the parts in the same way as “Malta Taghna Lkoll” resonated before the elections.

So far Busuttil’s gamble on ‘honesty’, which comes too close to the party’s last murky years in government, has paid off only partly – thanks to the Manuel Mallia debacle. It also remains a precarious plank, as one can be sure that Labour will still have plenty of Nationalist skeletons to be brought out on the eve of the next election.

Where the PN still has an advantage is its reputation, merited or not, for serious government, based on a sense of bureaucratic rationality which made people overlook the flaws of PN governments for quite some time. Yet such a claim also came as a result of being perceived as ‘a party of government’, an aura which could fast disappear as Muscat’s party becomes more ingrained in power. If endorsed by his party, de Marco’s centre-left narrative may be translated in a defence of the “common good” from crony capitalism and short-term approaches to social issues like the sustainability of pensions.

Ironically, just as the perception of GonziPN as a restricted circle monopolising power was vital for the construction of Labour’s inclusive electoral block, it is the actions of the PL in government which can make or undo the PN’s chances for a quick recovery. If there’s one thing that would bring back this ‘evil clique’ – to borrow Franco Debono’s sobriquet – it is that lethal combination of cronyism and condescending machismo, the ultimate turn-off for voters who see themselves as either enlightened conservatives, liberals or even left-wing voters.

For Muscat, the greatest problem is that in just two years Labour is already perceived as a self-perpetuating regime where political, administrative and economic power is increasingly intertwined, something which happened to the PN over a longer stretch of time (also thanks to a weaker media scrutiny during the early Fenech Adami days).

If Muscat does not fail in the economy, charges of cronyism will probably not be enough to bring a change of government in three and a half years’ time, but could erode the yawning gap between the two parties, paving the way for a change in government in 2023.