The newly elected leader’s praise for entrepreneurial endeavours demonstrates that he leans more towards the neoliberal agenda rather than a truly socialist ideology which would call for at least a nod towards the equal distribution of wealth and social solidarity.
by the IotL Magazine editors
Image: Malta Today, amended
The first official speech by the newly elected Prime Minister Robert Abela can be described as a safe, conservative and center-right type of discourse. The family loomed large as he opened his speech by thanking his wife and daughter.
This type of framing is important as it serves to portray him not only as capable of being a leader, but also as a good and modern husband and father. These are politically significant notions that the media uses to pass on important messages. In this case, messages that are based on the dominant understanding of the modern heterosexual family. In our collective imagination, such imagery stands for stability—a quality perceived as a winning electoral asset whereby a politician can reach the majority, both women and men who are at home, watching.
Many local commentators have associated the reference to continuity with progress and economic growth, which the new labour ‘movement’ initiated in 2013. But we believe that Robert Abela’s speech evokes other subtle underlying messages and symbols which are worth analysing in view of political and social change.
Morality and Family Values
The continuous reference to the plight of the family iterated over and again in Muscat’s last speech found its way into Abela’s first official statement. He opened his speech by elevating his wife’s role as his supporter and ended by lifting a child of similar age to his daughter in a trophy-like manner and kissing her on the cheek. Such a paternal gesture gives legitimacy to men as leaders by demonstrating that they are good at being leaders because they are good fathers and husbands. Such actions are implicit messages to Maltese society which demonstrate that State and Family cannot be separated.
At the end, we see the family united on stage assuring us that the ‘State as Family’ will protect Maltese families. Read: those who are behind the ‘mexxej’ [leader] will be protected.
In fact, he then went on to assure us—like a father would—that “there is no tragedy” in Malta. In Abela’s words, we should recognise that we are going through a sensitive time but he also repeated that there is nothing that Malta cannot surpass. At the end, we see the family united on stage assuring us that the ‘State as Family’ will protect Maltese families. Read: those who are behind the ‘mexxej’ [leader] will be protected.
No Mention of Caruana Galizia Murder
There was no mention of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia—the very cause of the political crisis and the change in leadership. Rather, Abela stated that people should not be concerned about injustice because this government is one that is only about justice. Therefore, we shouldn’t even think that there will be no equal opportunities for all because the focus will be on justice and not injustice.
Is sweeping corruption under the rug another form of continuity?
Economic Liberalism, not Socialism
Despite the fact that Abela self-ascribed as a socialist, half way through his speech he iterated that he believes in discipline—a conservative notion challenged by the contemporary left. Abela clarified his views by stating that each individual should exercise discipline upon themselves, that is, as a form of self-regulation. This is another sign of centre-left parties drifting towards conservative politics, reminding us of speeches by former British leader David Cameron who promoted such concepts.
Although encouraging self-discipline may come across as a positive and progressive ideology, especially in turbulent times like these, self-regulation shifts responsibility from the state to the individual. Such shifts in responsibility are worrisome. Delving deeper into this message, we would see a seemingly liberal and progressive leadership giving the individual the freedom to choose, and therefore, self-regulate. However, at the same time, the individual becomes responsible for their own actions and, by implication, social issues such as health and overall wellbeing become their sole responsibility.
For example, according to this ideology, sugar consumption exceeding a daily recommended dose would be considered our fault, and not that of the industry adding an excessive amount of sugar to beverages and food. Thus, the industry is not disciplined through regulations or a sugar tax, so its profit still remains the adulated force. Instead, it is the individual who gets the blame because they ought to discipline themselves. Often misunderstood as freedom, this oppressive concept is deeply linked to liberal market forces.
He mentioned the working class, the youth and the pensioners in passing, without emphasising the reason why these specific cohorts do not manage to access equal career opportunities and beyond.
The underlying pro-business message is also part of the continuity of this labour leadership. In fact, towards the end of his speech, Abela stated that he cherishes self-employment and emphasised that he himself was self-employed till the evening of the speech. The newly elected leader’s praise for entrepreneurial endeavours also demonstrates that he leans more towards the neoliberal agenda rather than a truly socialist ideology which would call for at least a nod towards the equal distribution of wealth and social solidarity.
Abela’s preference for free market capitalism comes out strongly in a promise to continue the essence of this government or “il-proġett ta’ Joseph” [Joseph’s project]. He mentioned the working class, the youth and the pensioners in passing, without emphasising the reason why these specific cohorts do not manage to access equal career opportunities and beyond. Thus, he failed to give a contextual political understanding to inequality, which is at the core of socialism.
Praise for Conservative Middle Class Professions
It seems that, to Abela, there are only two professions worth mentioning: lawyers and doctors. At first glance, this could come as a surprise as this kind of argument would have been more fitting to the Nationalist Party, dubbed as a party of lawyers. However, since the colonial times, lawyers and doctors have been regarded as pillars of a ‘civilised’ society in Malta.
But even if the new leader of the Labour Party reveres the ‘educated’ classes more, where are the rest of the middle class professions: the academics, artists, comedians, educators, and so on? These are professions that politicians rarely make reference to. Is it because by disregarding these professions—who are the guardians of civil society—the state protects itself from criticism?
Discontinued: Women’s Role in Society and Politics
And what about the rest of society: the disabled, children, the sick, women, single parents or the LGBTQI community? One would hope that this token-progressive legislation would be the first mention on the agenda, especially women’s role in politics, which was at the fore of Muscat’s rhetoric, even in his UN speech in September 2019. Here, the former Prime Minister stated, “The future should be equal. It is our responsibility to show the value of all peoples [sic], irrespective of their age, race, sexual orientation, gender, creed or disability. Diversity is an enriching factor of society.”
Even if just a lip service, the focus on diversity was always a distinct feature in Muscat’s speeches. In his UN speech, Muscat went as far as saying that the ‘future is female’ which would suggest that even leadership should move away from masculinist values. Although, ironically, female MPs have been rather quiet throughout the current political turmoil.
Could this be a sign of sexism, where female MPs were totally sidelined from the infamous boys’ club? Is it the case that patriarchy still rules our minds to the extent that dealing with corruption was seen by female MPs as a man’s job so they automatically withdrew from the scene?
Could this be a sign of sexism, where female MPs were totally sidelined from the infamous boys’ club? Is it the case that patriarchy still rules our minds to the extent that dealing with corruption was seen by female MPs as a man’s job so they automatically withdrew from the scene?
Any form of critical analysis of diversity and the current political situation were absent from Abela’s official speech. Should this be understood as a sign of further political regression, one which is shifting towards a more conservative politics, reminding us of a Thatcherite era. We are afraid it could be so.
