On Wednesday night all eyes were on EU parliament President Roberta Metsola and not on the tried, tested and already defeated party leader Bernard Grech.
In this sense Grech has shown a degree of selflessness by inviting Metsola to address his party’s annual Independence Day mass meeting, fully knowing that Metsola and not him would be the main attraction. It was a veritable case of a rock concert where the support band completely eclipsed the main band.
For few people, apart from die-hards, would have been interested in the event had Metsola not addressed it. Moreover, public interest in Metsola is fuelled by speculation on her next step after concluding her term as EU parliament president in June next year.
And while many see in her a potential to become party leader and possibly prime minister, few currently perceive Grech as a future PM.
Moreover, people were bound to compare her speech to Grech’s and the
contrast in style was evident, with Grech lashing at Abela’s fraudulent government and Metsola ignoring Abela completely and making an inclusive pitch for floaters and people disenchanted by the political class.
In so doing Grech may have been more forceful than Metsola who still has to get used to address mass meetings. But he lacked the eloquence of Metsola who can mesmerise by not saying much and just appealing to the least common denominator.
A symbiosis fraught with peril
The reality is that till next year’s midterm elections Grech and Metsola inevitably need each other. Metsola who has to contest again under the PN banner to renew her term as MEP and may have ambitions to lead the party at some stage, can’t afford to let her party sink deeper into irrelevance and therefore she needs to inject some of her energy and sense into it. For another trouncing would practically kill any chance of recovery in the next general election.
And Grech can benefit from this injection, in the hope that Metsola’s wider appeal would help him in achieving the modest target he has set for himself: that of electing three MEPs. In so doing he would not have to go back to the party’s general council for a confirmation as leader as he had committed himself after the general election debacle.
In this way he will be able stay on to lead the party till the next general election. If this happens Metsola would have propped Grech up.
This scenario may work for Metsola if she has no interest in becoming party leader but would be a cold shower for voters who hope that Metsola will come to their party’s rescue.
For Metsola, the major risk is being tainted by the party’s toxic brand.
This is because any bout of factional infighting within the party or any strategic blunders by its leadership can well backfire on her. Yet her calculation may well be that the only way to contain the damage is by taking an active and leading role in the campaign.
The risk for Grech is that of being increasingly perceived as a caretaker filling up for Metsola until she takes charge. This may weaken his control over a party making it more vulnerable to internal strife. For if his authority is not respected chaos may ensue.
The Hamrun incident in which a supporter was assaulted after Grech was not allowed in the party club was a reminder of how precarious the situation in the party remains.
Much now depends on what has been said between Grech and Metsola and whether they are on the same page, regarding their future intentions.
At this stage the best scenario for the party is one in which Grech is willingly ready to step down and Metsola is ready to take over. In this scenario Metsola could help Grech secure a third seat, thus enabling him to step down on a high note having achieved his declared aim. If such an understanding exists both can coordinate a smooth transition which includes an honourable exit for Grech.
The worse scenario for the party is one in which Metsola remains undecided on her future ambitions especially if she still harbours ambitions for other top posts at EU level or in other international organisations.
This raises the prospect of Grech holding on to his post especially if he manages to secure a third seat for the PN. A high rate of abstention among Labour voters coupled by inroads by Metsola among floating voters may increase the likelihood of such a result. But this may well turn in to a pyrrhic victory for the PN. For Grech would then have to face Abela again in a general election where Labour may well recover a sizeable chunk of voters which abstain in the midterms.
Moreover, in this scenario Metsola risks disappointing all those who invested their trust in her in the hope that she would answer what they see as a call from destiny. By keeping them guessing she risks toying with their emotions, turning disappointment into resentment for her failure to heed their call.
But how justified are the expectations of a turn-around for the PN if Metsola takes over? EU council President Donald Tusk’s experience in Poland shows that a stellar performance in EU institutions does not necessarily translate in success in national elections. Her performance in last Wednesday’s mass meeting, offers some clues on her strengths and weaknesses and her potential as a leader.
“Your own personal Metsola”
Mestola’s greatest strength is that of sticking to a script which appeals to the least common denominator while still sounding uplifting, one which allows different segments of the PN’s complex electorate to conjure up their own Metsola.
Like Jesus everyone can have his or her own personal Metsola.
Even in her role as EU parliament president Metsola excels in bland speeches full of platitudes but still sounding refreshing and bold.
Some aspect her speech offered a glimpse of a more modern, dynamic and liberal party leader in synch with environmental and social priorities and one who will empower women to take on more positions of power. But other soundbites may have appealed to mainstream conservatives who see in Metsola a Thatcher-like ‘lady who is not for turning’, who speaks about rewarding enterprise and hard work while arresting the country’s descent into ‘mediocrity’.
Moreover, she did so without taking a single controversial and divisive political position, which can possibly alienate potential supporters.
And crucially she entertained her partisan audience while keeping in mind a sizeable chunk of people who are disenchanted by the current breed of politicians but look up to her as one of the most successful Maltese politicians in the international scene. Instead of not voting, this segment may well choose to show their appreciation by voting for Metsola, whose constituency may extend beyond the PN’s shrinking base.
Surely, she has her own Achilles heel which may alienate some in the party’s conservative grass roots – her institutional pro-choice position which reflects the view of the European parliament but probably not that of the majority of people who were eagerly applauding her in Pjazza Tritoni. It is a question which she may eventually have to address in a party whose grass roots oppose abortion but whose intransigent position alienates liberals, feminists and influencers in civil society.
Still, Metsola’s larger than life persona may well insulate her, turning her into a Teflon politician with a carte blanche in building the party in her image.
The hawk who does not need to speak about corruption
Neither does she have to prove herself as an anti-corruption warrior. She is already perceived as a hawk who refused to shake hands with Joseph Muscat and who can now present herself as a moderate with an inclusive pitch.
This explains why she refrained from the usual litany against Labour’s corrupt deeds with her only reference to corruption being one which throws the onus on herself and her party to lead by example. Unlike Adrian Delia, she has no need to prove herself as a fighter against Labour’s corruption. She can move on without having a cloud of suspicion hanging over her.
Significantly absent from her speech was any reference to her own party’s mantra on Labour’s economic model and population growth. Rather than attacking Labour on the increase in the number of foreigners living in Malta, she made a sensible call for more planning in sectors like transport, roads and waste collection. While this comes at the risk of ignoring an issue which dominates public concerns, she is also avoiding a race to the bottom on an issue which risks fuelling xenophobia.
Her speech was also full of platitudes on excellence, high standards and meritocracy with which hardly anyone can disagree. And her tirade against mediocrity panders to both liberals who look up to European standards and to conservatives appalled by what they see as a freefall from a mythical golden age.
“We want to make Malta a centre of excellence by applying high standards in everything we do. The mentality that everything goes is unacceptable, because mediocrity erodes society,” she said. But her message rather than being one of gloom and doom was aspirational. “We are capable. Full Stop,” she said.
She has also shown a remarkable ability to capture the public mood in sound bites which incarnate a vision of a more meritocratic and aspirational country: “We want Malta to be a place where everyone can move forward, irrespective of whether one is blue or red, where what is yours by right does not depend on who you know.”
On a cultural level she also yearned for a society “where young people ask questions and learn not to believe everything they are told”, a statement which resonates with free thinkers and political agnostics. In the same vein she also invited journalists to hold her accountable for her actions.
But what about the working class?
The indications here are that Metsola’s economic vision hinges on the trickle-down effect of economic growth and shows no appetite for reforms advocated by anti-poverty activists like mandatory increases in the minimum wage or the introduction of a living wage.
“We want a country where those on the minimum wage or a low pension can earn more and where the middle class can grow.” In short, these workers will have to wait for the cake to get bigger so that more crumbs fall their way.
She also makes it clear that her idea of equality is “not to turn everyone the same” but to offer the same opportunities so everyone can prosper. The problem in this approach is that it fails to address deep structural inequalities which are often disguised as ‘differences’ and which are likely to fester if not confronted head on by a redistribution of wealth aimed at reducing inequality.
It’s the economy stupid
Significantly unlike all PN leaders elected after Gonzi, she puts the economy and prosperity at the centre of her narrative.
Her vision of excellence is interlinked with the development of new economic sectors which promise more prosperity for everyone. In her vision, entrepreneurs are presented as heroes who create jobs and wealth. She also shuns state intervention especially when this results in competition with the private sector for labour and resources but stopped short of committing herself for privatisations or the liberalisation of essential services like electricity as recently proposed by her party.
She also hinted at fiscal initiative aimed at rewarding private initiative while speaking of an economy “where both workers and employers make more money.” Clearly making money for her is not a sin but a virtue which should be nurtured.
Ultimately despite some hiccups in the delivery, in the space of 25 minutes, Metsola managed to spell out a coherent and confident narrative for a centre-right party which struggles with its own identity and is ready to engage in a “national conversation” on creating a better future.
It is therefore hard not to look at this speech as Metsola’s launching pad for her own campaign to become Malta’s next PM. What is sure is that Metsola has set a train in motion, one from which she will find it hard to pull off even if she wishes to.
