Oh look, I agree with Malta Today's leading article

I’ve noticed that the leading articles in the Sunday edition of Malta Today (I don’t often read the Wednesday edition, so can’t speak about those) are almost invariably well-written and with a markedly different tone to that adopted in the rest of the newspaper, most particularly in Saviour Balzan’s column and the general personal axe-grinding coverage masquerading as news.

Though a newspaper editor is not in duty bound to write all his leading articles (what in Malta is termed ‘the editorial’), and might occasionally commission one on a specialist subject, he is expected to at least give the impression that he does. With Malta Today, there is no chance of this. The editor writes a column, which reads like a stream of consciousness botched together with malapropisms, badly spelled words, poor grammar and a very limited vocabulary. Meanwhile, somebody else – from a very different educational background and clearly more familiar with the English language and with fewer chips on his shoulder – writes his leading articles. It’s interesting, because while Saviour takes a very long time to say nothing and I can never agree with him or disagree with him because there’s nothing there except irritation-inducing angst, I often find myself agreeing with the leading articles that he doesn’t write, and which seem to belong to another newspaper altogether. It’s a shame that this person, whoever he or she is, isn’t running the newspaper instead of Balzan, leaving him to his twin hobby-horse column and his over-riding obsession with Albert Mizzi and Richard Cachia Caruana, the only two men in his world.

Malta Today, Sunday 22 February (leading article)

Cards on the table, please

After seven months at the helm of the Labour Party, Joseph Muscat’s honeymoon period is now over. We have now had enough time to observe the emergence of a clear pattern of behaviour; and while some of the Opposition leader’s qualities are largely favourable in a potential Prime Minister, others may well prove to be a liability. Politically, Muscat has turned out to be more astute than his detractors give him credit for. His handling of the St John’s issue, for instance, placed the Prime Minister in a doubly awkward position: setting his government on a direct collision course with a segment of its own traditional support base, while at the same time exposing the precariousness of his fragile, single-seat parliamentary majority.

The outcome was unsurprisingly heralded as a “triumph” for the young Opposition leader. But at the same time, it remains indistinguishable from the traditional “Punch and Judy” style we have grown so used to in recent decades. However, the trouble really begins when these selfsame tactics are also applied to delicate and sensitive problems – problems which cannot be solved by confrontation and filibustering, but which instead demand ingenuity and the ability to think outside the box. Problems like immigration, which Muscat forced to the forefront of political debate by demanding that parliament suspend its customary schedule to debate his own motion on the issue.

Again, it was an effective political gambit, which cast Muscat in the role of agenda-setter, and forced the Prime Minister to take up a moderate position which may cost him support from the more radical fringes of his own party. Besides, there can be little doubt that the issue does need to be seriously debated. Clearly, Malta is experiencing a cultural shock to the system, which must be handled with extreme caution if we are to avoid the costly mistakes made by other countries facing similar problems… mistakes which have elsewhere led to massive social upheaval, occasionally resulting in violence and even loss of life.

But judging by Muscat’s extraordinary outburst last Wednesday – in which he accused the government of maintaining a “conspiracy of silence” (omerta’) on an issue which he himself had recently discussed in a meeting with the Justice Minister – it is not at all clear what type of debate the Opposition leader intends to have. Certainly, Muscat appears keener to discuss the government’s failures, than his own party’s proposed solutions. This was also evidenced by a statement released on Thursday by Labour’s security spokesman, Michael Falzon, which roundly accused the government of not taking the issue seriously enough… without offering any indication of how a Labour government would tackle the same problems in its place.

In fact, the Opposition has to date avoided making any policy statements whatsoever on the issue of immigration. It agrees with detention, but then lashes out at government when the selfsame policy is criticised by international human rights groups. It talks about “pressing for a better deal” with the EU… without explaining what bargaining chips the PL would be willing to use up during negotiations (if the matter ever gets discussed at all.) More seriously still, Joseph Muscat has been surprisingly clumsy in his choice of words – insisting on referring to the issue as a “crisis”, with little thought to the possibility that in so doing, he may himself precipitate a larger crisis than we are already experiencing.

As in all high-stake card games, however, a time will come when the Opposition’s bluff is finally called. What answers will Muscat have, when the questions are suddenly his to answer? Would he be willing to pull Malta out of the Dublin II convention? If so, is he aware of the implications? (I.e., that Malta would have defaulted on its contractual obligations, and as such would be liable to sanctions for breaking international law?) And how would Muscat react, if faced with flat refusal to co-operate by other EU member states? Will he change his party’s position regarding the EU… yet again? Will he threaten to withdraw from the Union? And if so, how will this impact the PL’s standing within the largely pro-EU party of European Socialists?

These are not rhetorical questions, and yet the Labour Party has so far studiously avoided answering any of them. Far from an “earthquake of change”, it looks as though the new PL leadership will continue offering little in the way of a serious alternative government… condemning the country to a mediocre future for many years to come.