[Analysis] Simon Busuttil’s narrative: Does good governance pay?

By delivering honest policies, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil promises to be “different” both from past Nationalist governments and from the present government. While Panama remained constantly in the background, Busuttil – who still trails Muscat in public opinion polls – projected himself as a “different” kind of leader on Sunday.

Added to this is the projection of the PN as a “people’s party” which is meant to exploit the growing sentiment that Labour has become too close to a select group of upstart businessmen.

Yet this may be difficult for a party which was historically been close to traditional elites. By emphasising the difference even with regards to past Nationalist governments he drew a line, but once again he failed to mention tangible examples of what went wrong in the past, except for a generic but significant recognition of mistakes related to environmental deterioration.

How will wealth trickle down?

Yet the question is whether a commitment for honesty made by a party inevitably tainted by its record in 25 years in office (an impression the party is trying to fight by presenting a number of younger untainted candidates who addressed the general council), is enough to win it an election if the economy continues to perform well. This raises the question of whether voters are swayed by their pockets or their conscience when voting.

Busuttil’s major accomplishment was to relate good governance to sound economic, environmental and social policy. He may well have strengthened his argument by referring to countries like Spain and Greece, which collapsed after periods of growth fuelled by construction and property booms. 

Facing criticism that good government may not be enough to win the general election if the economy continues to perform well, Busuttil emphasised the importance of having independent institutions in ensuring that economic growth does not simply benefit the few.

“Without good governance we will not have an economy for the people but an economy benefitting the few.” 

The party has already spelt its economic vision in a document presented last year. But while the document scored well in terms of a vision for the future, it lacked beef – especially on how wealth will be redistributed under a PN government.

For if, according to Busuttil, the problem is that the few are benefitting from growth, how will he ensure that wealth is shared by the many? Rhetorically, Busuttil has clearly shifted his party to the centre-left. Taking a cue from Marlene Farrugia’s speech in the demonstration against corruption, he drew a powerful contrast between people who beg for charity to have treatment for cancer and the money lost in corruption. He made a powerful statement by insisting that patients should never have to beg for what should be theirs by right, as he reclaimed the party’s “social conscience” (ruh socjali).

But so far the party has not matched rhethoric with policies.  The  party now says that it is open to raise the minimum wage: supporting such a meausure which would clearly place the Nationalist Party firmly on  the centre left of Maltese politics.

He also made a comparison between the €20 million spent on CHOGM and the EU migration summit and the way the government increased rent for those living in social housing, which he described as a “tax on poverty”.

He also lambasted the government’s track record on the environment, for making “turning money in to its God”. He also struck a chord with environmentalist by insisting on the need “to draw a line on the environment, it is not ours – it belongs to our children”.

By accepting his party’s blame for environmental degradation, he may earn points among switchers and middle of the road voters.

Busuttil also put Panama in a wider, more populist context. In reference to Keith Schembri’s offshore companies, he asked, “How can they pretend that you pay taxes while the chief of staff creates such structures?”

Yet he failed to extend his criticism to the role of intermediaries who, according to the Panama Papers, advised a number of Maltese clients to open offshore companies. While there is no comparison between the advice given by intermediaries and the issue of political responsibility facing Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, from a tax avoidance perspective, offshore companies are an aberration.

Beyond Panama

For the first time in the past months, Busuttil’s speech was not completely dominated by Panamagate. In this he showed an awareness that he needs to convey a more cohesive message, which is not simply a reaction to “scandal after scandal”.

Yet Busuttil can’t escape the reality that his whole narrative is based on Muscat’s record in office. In fact, it is only thanks to Panama that Busuttil is for the first time being seen as a possible winner of the next election. The question on everyone’s lips can’t be ignored: How is it possible for Muscat to remain more popular than Busuttil after such an earth-shattering scandal?

Busuttil kept the pitch on Panama, reserving his moment of indignation for the comments made by Muscat while addressing a Commonwealth meeting on corruption. “He told them about tough political decisions he had to take. But what were these decisions, in reality? Because Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi are still there.”

Responding to concerns

Attempting to venture outside of the Panama scandal, Busuttil tried to widen his criticism of government by focusing on the Cabinet’s least popular minister, Joe Mizzi, singling out the traffic congestion issue, even if the party’s own proposals launched this weekend are further proof that magical solutions do not exist for this national problem. The PN seems to have chosen traffic as his party’s bread-and-butter issue. Yet the PN leader failed to make any reference to public transport.

The problem for the PN is that while the price of electricity can be measured, a strategy on traffic is long term. 

Moreover, the party’s most concrete and populist proposal – that of free transport for school children irrespective of whether they attend State, Church or independent schools – smacks of a subsidy for categories who can well afford to pay for school transport over others.

There is no evidence that it is the cost of transport which makes parents use cars to take children to school. On the other hand, the party’s commitment to lower fuel prices may encourage more people to use cars. The party’s most courageous proposal, albeit the one which attracted most ridicule from the Labour media; a voluntary opt-in scheme whereby owners may choose to use their car only on selected days and particular times against a reduction in license fee or road tax.

Busuttil’s personal narrative

Wearing a blue tie which underlined an unwillingness to emulate Muscat’s attempts to lure PN voters through colour coding (but just imagine the reaction of Nationalists to Busuttil wearing a red tie), Busuttil tried to appeal to Labour voters by giving a social twist to the corruption argument, linking it to cancer victims and those who live in social housing. 

Definitively less uptight than usual Busuttil moved “to and fro” on stage in a relaxed way – in clear imitation of Obama and Steve Jobs – as he already did in October 2014 while addressing the PN’s Ideat conference. 

One may say that Busuttil has gone a long way since then, with opinion polls showing a narrowed gap between the two parties and the trust gap between the two leaders down from 15% to 7%.

He even managed to express emotions, especially when referring to cancer victims who have to beg for assistance even if he still struggled with his pitch when expressing indignation on Panama. But Busuttil may well have delivered one of his most cohesive and least robotic speeches so far. Surely he was more at ease in the sanitised environment of a party hall than he was when addressing the crowds in Valletta.

He also threw a light on his own personal quandary on finding himself leading a party, which he found wrecked “at the bottom of the sea”. His unease with the local political system which he described a “dark room where confrontation and insults” are the order of the day may well have been one of the most honest reflections made by the Opposition leader.

But this does raise questions on whether Busuttil, as Alfred Sant before him, can take the heat of a political system that he innately appears to dislike. Moreover, his own style of leadership has been a confrontational one, to the extent that he boasts that in parliament the Opposition is so effective that one cannot believe it is nine seats down.

He also emphasised public opinion surveys showing the two parties in a tie, but failed to mention the trust gap between him and the Prime Minister – a gap which suggests that Labour starts the race with an advantage, as voters who trust Muscat more than Busuttil are more likely to vote for Labour in a contest which will probably be fought on presidential lines.

He also underlines his mission – of bringing light and fresh air to this stuffy room. He tried to underline his role as a modest politician with no  pretentions of being “a hero” but who is driven by a sense of duty. This contrasts with Muscat’s macho approach to politics, which becomes a liability when tough talk contrasts with his inability to take action on Panamagate.

Defending the ‘Cedoli’

Busuttil found himself also defending his own party’s controversial loan scheme, which he unconvincingly tried to project as an example of honest politics rather than a desperate attempt to revive the finances of his party by skirting around the new party financing law. Busuttil was also full of praise to Ann Fenech, whom he described as the brains behind the scheme.

He emphasised that unlike backroom donations – like those which he claims took place in Labour’s fourth floor – the system is one which leaves the party un-obliged to its lenders, whom it will pay back in full. But he failed to address the major criticisms levelled against the scheme, namely that the party will be operating as a bank and that the names of lenders will not be published, something which may well fuel speculation of ‘favouritism’ towards lenders when the party is elected back in office. For while a loan is not a donation as it has to be paid back in full with interest, it will be hard for a PN elected in government to dispel the perception that it owes something to its creditors whose names remain unknown. 

Busuttil struck a chord when lashing back at Labour’s deflective tactics, which have characterised its response to Panamagate. “Every time the government has its back against the wall, it attacks the opposition.”

He also warned that Muscat wants to throw mud on everyone, so that the people will end up thinking “all politicians are the same”.

Yet while Muscat has contributed his fair share to this mentality through his deflective tactics, cynicism is also rooted in the PN’s record in office. Surely it is Busuttil who has to prove himself, and the only way he can do this is by getting elected in office and acting differently from past administration. He says his main mission is to clean up Maltese politics, not to get elected to power.

But he also says that because of his commitment to clean up politics he will win the next election. Yet to get there he needs to convince the cynics. Busuttil says that his party sends him to conduct “the most difficult house visits” where he regularly meets switchers and Labour voters. His speech shows that the PN leader is on a learning curve.