“If they keep annoying me, I won’t exclude it.” This was Joseph Muscat’s cryptic reply to a simple question: will you return to politics? An odd mix of threat, mystery, deflection and lies characterised his return, in a Times of Malta interview.
Muscat determinedly refused to be interviewed for years. Even at the height of his power and glory, Muscat rejected all offers. So why did he do it? Why now?
One thing’s certain. It wasn’t to provide straightforward honest answers to the burning questions that still plague his pungent legacy.
Linguistic text analysis is a technique that helps identify liars. Five common patterns emerge in the language of deception. Muscat’s interview is a showcase of all five patterns: minimal self-reference, negative language, over simplified explanations, convoluted phrasing and deflection.
Muscat’s blatant lies left the interviewer flabbergasted. “There’s a lot of support,” Muscat declared, “I see a chorus of people supporting me.” “I’ve seen an unprecedented number of people supporting me,” he insisted using minimal self-reference. When the interviewer commented “You told me you still have a degree of popularity”, Muscat shamelessly denied it. “You said that,” he accused the interviewer. Despite knowing he was being recorded, Muscat still lied. Typical of pathological liars, he contradicted himself, within minutes.
When asked whether he accepted responsibility for Malta’s greylisting, Muscat blamed everybody else. It was “the criticism surrounding Daphne’s murder”, other countries pushed Malta on to that list because of “legacy issues like taxation and gaming”, “the opposition doesn’t help”. Muscat resorted to negative language and oversimplified explanations, typical of liars. So, when the interviewer challenged him – was Malta greylisted because of the PN? – Muscat answered “Don’t put words in my mouth” but went on to repeat that claim – “the opposition incites people against Malta”.
When his ludicrous claims were rejected, he used another liar’s tactic, convoluted phrasing. When challenged that Malta was greylisted because it wasn’t trusted, Muscat embarked on a verbose sermon of crap: “I won’t identify countries but I had been asked why we didn’t take tougher steps against Nemea Bank where there was money laundering, my predecessor was a director at the bank and I was asked if I wanted to go easy on Lawrence Gonzi.”
And added another liar’s tactic, negative language: “I was asked why we weren’t tough with his son who was linked to the gaming mafia, though I’m proud we didn’t proceed because he shouldn’t have been accused.” Instead of giving a straight answer, he tarnished his predecessor and his son. In the same false breath, he links Gonzi’s son to the mafia, yet, then admits he was falsely incriminated.
Muscat even brought in John Dalli as an excuse for greylisting. When reminded that it was him who actually appointed Dalli as his consultant, Muscat resorted to more convoluted phrasing – “Before I won the election they sent for me and asked me to keep quiet because Malta would suffer – and I said nothing”. Muscat was lying again. The interviewer didn’t push him – who are “they”? Who sent for him? Who asked him to keep quiet? Why did he keep quiet? Of course, there was no “they”. It was Muscat himself who removed police commissioner John Rizzo to allow Dalli to return to Malta from exile, tranquil he would avoid prosecution.
More lies followed. Do you confirm you put your party machine behind Robert Abela? He denied. When pressed further, he admitted that Michelle “did speak with some people and expressed the fact she favoured Abela, I did not intervene”. He’s used this tactic before. Getting others to do his dirty work, Muscat claims innocence. His wife would not have supported Abela without Muscat’s explicit instructions. Similarly, he falsely claimed “I don’t gag anybody” but let Glenn Bedingfield relentlessly dehumanise Daphne Caruana Galizia from his very office. And he consented to her harassment by Henley & Partners with SLAPP lawsuits.
“I am not bitter,” Muscat claimed, completing his sentence with bilious bitterness, “unlike someone from the other side whose name I won’t mention who tries to trip up his successor because he’s no longer in charge”.
Are you referring to Simon Busuttil, the interviewer asked. “How did you reach that conclusion,” the triumphantly sarcastic Muscat replied. “I mentioned two words and you reached that conclusion.”
The interviewer knew precisely who Muscat was referring to, not because Muscat’s assertions were correct but because Muscat’s loathing and envy of Busuttil is notorious, for good reason. Muscat is a car-crash of a political figure, ostracised and denounced for gross corruption. Busuttil occupies a key role in European politics. Muscat was only just starting. Accusing Busuttil of tripping up his successor, Muscat went on to show him how to do it. “He’s a lawyer for starters,” Muscat denigrated his successor, “he won’t take the decisions I took”.
He went on to brag, you can’t compare Abela with me, “it’s like comparing apples and oranges”. I’m on a league of my own, was the message. Abela’s only where he is because I got Michelle to rally support for him. Besides, this is not Abela’s government, “it’s the same government” – my government, not Abela’s. I was the one who built “a new middle class”. Before me people “couldn’t cope with the cost of living”.
Even now, they adore me – “unprecedented numbers” supporting me. Me not Abela. And I’m sick and tired of this “Joseph Muscat, Joseph Muscat, Joseph Muscat”. “If they keep annoying me” I’m going to be back and this time….
The real reason Muscat is back is because he’s cornered. His once unassailable impunity now feels threatened. His own stalwarts disown him. Muscat acts out of panic, deploying a toxic mix of bitterness, viciousness, lies and egomania. Here was a spent Muscat, still attempting to wreak havoc and desperately clinging on.
Malta can thank its lucky stars, and Caruana Galizia, that it is rid of him – once and for all. Everyone knows he’s toast – including him.