Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/679878
14 IT has often been observed that Malta seems to lead a double life. On one level, there is the public sphere to which we are all exposed via the media; and which has in- creasingly come to be dominated by politics, politics and more poli- tics. Separately, however, there is also the Malta in which people of all opinions and backgrounds tend to rub shoulders at cafes and in bars, watch football or the Eurovi- sion Song Contest, and generally go about their business with little regard to the heated political debate of the moment (until, of course, an election comes along… in which case the public sphere once again takes over). As someone who takes an interest in what makes this country of ours tick, I have always been fascinated by the thin red line that divides these two Maltas. How much of our ap- parent obsession with party politics is, in fact, real… and how much of it a figment of our collective imagina- tion? It looks like I am not alone in ask- ing this question. Andrew Azzo- pardi is a senior lecturer at the University of Malta; his area of spe- cialisation 'media, youth and poli- tics'. A journalist and broadcaster in his own right, he has often publicly questioned the extent to which po- litical perceptions match up to the situation on the ground. "It is a curious phenomenon," he begins in his University office, as I ask him for his views on Malta's endless fascination with party poli- tics. "First of all, we have a love-hate relationship with politics in Malta. Just like we have a love-hate rela- tionship with the Church. We can do without the Church, but at the same time… we can't do without the Church. Same with politics: we can live without it, but in fact we choose not to. You can interpret this phenomenon in different ways. One interpretation would be that the Maltese people have a strong sense of civic duty. They love their coun- try… and they are so keen to shake off the yoke of colonialism that they get involved in politics: and because we look at politicians as part of the machinery that can move the coun- try forward, we want to be close to them. That's one way of looking at it, at any rate…" There is, however, another less rosy interpretation. "I would think that the truth is somewhere in be- tween: but the other interpretation is that we are so insecure as a nation, that we need someone to 'hold our hands', so to speak. If you feel unsafe or insecure, you will want to rub shoulders with people who wield power – or who transmit the mes- sage that they wield power – for your own security. It's a bit like cavemen: if they gathered together, it wasn't because they liked the smell of each other's fur… it was a question of sur- vival, of safety in numbers." This, Azzopardi adds, might also contribute to the sense of tribal- ism that underpins Maltese politics: there is an almost instinctive drive to be part of a larger group. "Yet another interpretation is that our society is immersed in a story… a narrative… in which politics plays a part. It's not the only part: the same narrative involves going to mass on Sundays… having children… ad- vancing in your career… you could almost describe it as 'ticking the boxes'. Being a supporter of a po- litical party is one of the boxes to be ticked, along with all the others, to make up the narrative of what it means to be 'Maltese'…" All this, he goes on, now has to be viewed in the context of today's po- litical reality. "If partisan politics reignited re- cently, it was mostly because of the disastrous situation the Nationalist Party found itself in before the last election. The only way they could get back on their feet was to empha- sise the difference between 'us' and 'them'. All other things being equal, there was never going to be a hope in hell without that difference…" But hang on: surely, the 'us and them' mentality he describes pre- dates the last election result by sev- eral decades. I remember it as a sta- ple of my childhood, and that was in the 1970s. How can he suddenly talk of it in terms of a recent Nationalist invention? "The Nationalists did not 'invent' the divide, no; but it was in their interest to emphasise it, after it had slowly died down. In fact, I would even argue that they had no choice but to emphasise it, because – be- neath the surface – there is no real difference between the two parties any more. This is widely known: if you took the PN and repackaged it with a different wrapping, nobody would know the difference. The old notion of 'ideological differences' no longer exists. This is true of partisan support, too: people no longer sup- port 'Labour' or the 'Nationalists'. They support 'Joseph' or 'Simon'…." Before the last election, he adds, this posed a particularly difficult challenge for the Nationalists, be- cause Joseph Muscat – then un- tested as prime minister – was on the surface more appealing to begin with. "He was reassuring; a good campaigner; he managed to con- vince even when things were not going his way; when cornered he seemed to perform even better… in brief, he projected a positive image which contrasted with the Nation- alists… who, after so long in power, had lost their shine…" Even today, with all that has hap- pened since Labour came to power, Azzopardi argues that Muscat re- mains Labour's biggest asset. "I speak to young people, and when I ask them who they intend to vote for, most – I won't say all – answer 'Joseph Muscat' without even think- ing about it. Somehow, in spite of everything, he has retained his popularity. I've often said this, but as long as Muscat remains the Labour leader, Labour will continue win- ning. It would take something ex- traordinary to change that…" All this may have been true until fairly recently, but many would ar- gue that the Panama Papers scandal – and, in particular, Muscat's lack- lustre response to it – was precisely the sort of 'extraordinary thing' that might dent his aura… Azzopardi shakes his head. "I disa- gree. The Panama Papers scandal was certainly a big issue; it has dam- aged the Labour Party, no doubt about that. But when people vote, they don't base their vote on issues like that. In the last elections, for example, people didn't vote Labour solely on the basis of the oil scandal. They couldn't have, because the oil scandal surfaced only a few weeks before the election… and there were indications that Labour was going to win long beforehand." Is he suggesting that an issue as se- rious as the Panama revelations will not have any impact on the electoral fortunes of the two parties? "I wouldn't say 'no impact'. Scan- dals like that might give people the excuse they were looking for… but only to vote how they were going to vote anyway. In the last election, people voted Labour mostly because they wanted lower utility bills… or because they were fed up of Gonzi… or because of all sorts of other things, of which the oil scandal was only one. It may have contributed to the extent of Labour's majority… but not to the victory itself, which was a foregone conclusion." In the case of the present scandal, the election is still two years away. "I think people ultimately vote on bread and butter issues: how much first-time property buyers will save on interest, what tax rate they will be paying… things like that. But still: it is a dangerous tightrope to walk. The Panama Papers might not be an election issue in two years' time… but at present, it will have given many Nationalist voters who voted Labour in 2013 an excuse to switch back to the PN. Because there are many who are disillusioned. Even without the Panama Papers scan- dals, the fact remains that the 'thrill' of voting Labour in 2013 has clearly gone…" All the same, Azzopardi doubts that the effect of this disillusionment will be enough to dislodge Muscat's administration. "If you take all the mistakes made by this government since 2013, and put them side by side: Gaffarena, the Café Premier, the power station that was not deliv- ered on time, and now the Panama papers… on paper, they should be enough to conclude that Labour has lost its majority outright. There are clear signs that things were not done right. In the case of Gaffarena alone, there were indications that politicians were in bed with entre- preneurs: something which irritates a lot of people. The Panama scan- dal embarrassed the entire country on an international level. Rationally and logically, one would think this is enough to cost a government an election." Yet there is statistical evidence that this is not the case. Labour has undeniably lost support since 2013: but our most recent survey indicates that, if an election were held today, Muscat would still win comfortably with a 10,000 vote majority. How does Azzopardi account for this? "One thing I notice talking to young people is that the old stereo- type of Maltese voters being firmly stuck in their ways is beginning to wane. It might be true of the older generations, but younger voters to- day tend to make up their minds on the day of the election… if not in the polling booth itself. One con- sequence of this is that it is a fallacy to reason that the last election result has any bearing on the next one: as though voters use their vote to build on their previous one. I would say that, in today's political climate, the race starts from the same line with every election…" But that seems to suggest that Muscat could easily lose, when Azzopardi has only just argued the Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 15 MAY 2016 Politics is becoming a joke. Politicians have become the jesters of our society – the entertainers, objects of fun and ridicule The old notion of 'ideological differences' no longer exists. People no longer support 'Labour' or the 'Nationalists'. They support 'Joseph' or 'Simon'… ENTERTAINMENT PARTY ALLEGIANCE Politics has become a