Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/753405
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2016 News 17 that his government was part of the establishment, the PN leader in- sisted that the prime minister was, together with Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, part of a "corrupt establishment" leading Malta. "The establishment in Malta is the prime minister and the two people around him who were found to have set up secret compa- nies in Panama," Busuttil said in a dig at former energy minister Kon- rad Mizzi and OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri. In this sense Busuttil's response to Muscat's anti establishment claim was justified in the face of the Prime Minister's attempt to portray himself as the anti establishment leader. Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri are certainly not part of some old school or traditional rul- ing class; but their actions, make no mistake, are part of an aspiration to be part of that kind of global elite that makes full use of tax havens like the British Virgin Islands and Panama. But this also begs questions on whether the participation of Na- tionalist exponents in the financial services sector, as intermediaries or as IIP agents, also makes them a part of the despised establishment. Still, nothing can beat the establish- ment credentials of a minister and a chief of staff who own companies in Panama and the BVI. Where Busuttil was completely off the mark was in portraying his challenge to Muscat as an anti establishment crusade similar to Trump's. For Busuttil's assessment of the US election as "a vote against the establishment and the concen- trated powers that favour the few," is a wrong one. Busuttil invites the Maltese to take "lessons from the US election and vote to remove the establishment". But the kind of es- tablishment which US voters have voted against is more akin to the PN's 25 year balancing act between cronyism and institutional progress than to Muscat's system of power in which he is increasingly behav- ing like a Nationalist on steroids. In reality the Busuttil political persona is more akin to that of a sober but imperfect Hillary Clinton than to a strongman like Donald Trump. Busuttil may be right in exposing the hypocrisy of Muscat's anti establishment rhetoric but he can't escape the fate of leading a centrist party whose best claim to winning back power is to promise a better job in governing the coun- try and not ride high on a populist insurgency. By projecting himself as an insur- gent candidate Busuttil is wearing a shoe which does not fit him, put- ting his authenticity in question. At best Busuttil can reach out to cred- ible 'insurgents' like the Greens and civil society movements rather than taking a role which does not fit him. Busuttil is what he is, a promoter of EU membership, a former MEP and a former deputy leader of a centrist party, which was firmly entrenched in power networks for 25 years. Where Busuttil can make a difference is by presenting him- self as the proponent of checks and balances, which would ensure that a future Nationalist government would not be able to ride rough- shod on meritocracy and good governance. For good governance, if entrenched by laws and regu- lations, is the greatest insurance against oligarchy. Busuttil's best shot to power is a promise to limit his own power if elected. What is the establishment? While both political leaders are partly right in depicting their ad- versary as being close to certain vested interests, "the establish- ment" is a very flexible term which can be comfortably used by anyone who feels excluded, irrespective of other more real distinctions like wealth, power and status. Moreo- ver, determining who is part of the establishment is tricky, depending on who is writing the narrative. While a conservative is likely to see the liberal media, environmen- talists, the civil rights lobby and the bureaucracy as pillars of the es- tablishment, left wingers are more likely to refer to the power of big business. In a country like Malta, where ideological lines are blurred, both parties are likely to pick and choose, putting their adversar- ies in the establishment camp and their allies in the pro-change camp. Perversely, for a diehard Labourite, the Archbishop, in ranting against high-rise towers as a symbol of a new capitalist religion, represents the "establishment", while for a die- hard traditionalist Nationalist the gay lobby is now part and parcel of the establishment. In reality both Busuttil as an op- position leader and aspirant prime minister and Muscat as prime min- ister are part of a political establish- ment, which owes its legitimacy to liberal democratic norms. And this is not a bad thing. In fact Malta is so far lucky not to have been rocked by the politics of hatred, which mark the insurgency of far right candidates and parties in the rest of Europe and the USA. At the same time both Busuttil and Muscat are prone to be subject- ed to the pressures of lobby groups ranging from gun toting hunters to powerful financial groups who seek to influence policy-making to further their interests. Rather than asking which of the two leaders is most pro-establishment, it may be more worthwhile to ask an- other question: whose policies are least susceptible to pres- sure from these lobbies and whose policies are more likely to create a firewall between public policy and the self-serving interests of the rich and the pow- erful? Surely judging by the outcome of the US elec- tion, an anti establish- ment insurgency is not the answer. For Donald Trump, like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy before him, is simply blurring further the lines between private interests and gov- ernance. In fact even in Malta, it is the con- flict of interest between private business interests and policy making which is eroding democratic decision making. Thankfully the US has a long tradition of checks and balances to restrain Trump now that he is President. On the other hand this is exactly what Malta lacks. It is the absence of institu- tional checks and bal- ances which leaves Malta unprepared for a real populist challenge – repre- sented by the far right – which may rock the entire politi- cal establish- ment when the economy hits a snag. What constitutes an elite? against the establishment Elites are those who have vastly disproportionate access to or control over resources. Access or control in one arena of social life can result in advantages in others. US sociologist C. Wright Mills published his book The Power Elite in 1956, identifying a triumvirate of power groups – political, economic and military – which form a distinguishable, although not unified, power-wielding body in the United States. German liberal sociologist Ralph Dahrendorf was critical of Mills's view that ruling elites act like a cabal. Instead, Dahrendorf argued that there is no single "elite class" which shares a common interest. Instead, they are a diverse group who, because of their social power, share a degree of autonomy that allows them to influence state policy more than other less organised groups. Walking tall: Donald Trump