Robert Abela comes to the end of the preliminary phase of the pandemic with two starkly contrasting trust scores. Opinion polls show he is greatly favoured over the opposition leader. But this week, wide distrust in his judgement has been displayed by several key professional associations.
The distrust has been shown on two issues: the reports on the ‘amnesty mechanism’ for special cases of fines meted out for breaches of social distancing rules; and the demand by health professionals that Abela publish the research on which the pace of reopening is based. Criticism has been dished out by the professional associations of all those directly involved in the frontline of the pandemic – medics, police and other enforcement officers.
Abela insists, of course, that his amnesty mechanism was misreported. True, all is clear if you follow Sunday’s interview with Monday’s explanation in mind. But that makes both the misreporting and associations’ immediate statements more significant, not less.
The reportage was wrong but it can’t be blamed. In a country where ‘amnesty’ is associated with blanket amnesties, a politician should stipulate clearly what he means. And he should not quickly move into showing sympathy for the Floriana football fans’ celebrations. Without Monday’s explanation, the Sunday interview was ambiguous.
But the really worrying sign, from Abela’s perspective, is how the professional associations were quick to assume that the wrong interpretation was plausible. The associations don’t put it past Abela to show bad judgement.
Those who said he was insulting their work evidently think he is capable of being a jerk. The Malta Employers’ Association, speaking of the consequences for the rule of law and for the handling of the next pandemic, clearly has doubts about Abela’s ability to think things through.
The same doubts are expressed by the Association of Public Health Medicine when they demand that the prime minister publish the strategy he’s following. They must think he’s out of his depth.
How did we get here? Apart from not being careful enough in interviews, there are three factors.
Robert Abela can be careless in interviews- Ranier Fsadni
First, the earliest phase of the pandemic has shaped the impression that the economic and medical professionals have of Abela. The negotiations over financial aid for businesses – with the initial small packages – left many key players concluding that Abela has no idea of what it takes to run a business.
Now, the succession of packages may have been a negotiating ploy, by the government, to influence demands. In that case, something went wrong because, instead of communicating savvy, the impression given was of naivety.
The impression of the frontline medical professionals was affected by the way in which the state’s human resources and quality of care were stretched to accommodate Steward Health Care. We may have had enough healthcare capacity in the end; but it was a near miss, with the government finding it necessary to commission a prefabricated hospital. It left Abela looking hamstrung by Joseph Muscat and his legacy.
Beyond the power of first impressions, however, there has also been a lack of understanding of the prime minister’s role in a crisis like this. With the reporting on the medical aspects in the hands of Chris Fearne and Charmaine Gauci, Abela’s role in the communicative division of labour – his duty, not his caprice – is to maintain optimism.
We’re not talking about reckless positive thinking. In every government, someone in charge has to give businesses the confidence to hang on and not cut their losses and shut down permanently. Otherwise, the economic costs would have been even higher than they have been.
It is clear that Monday’s budget will continue in this direction. It will talk up the ‘animal spirits’ of the economy, lower the costs of investment and hope to release pent-up consumer demand.
We can argue about what Abela could have said better. We know he can be careless in interviews. But there’s no arguing that someone had to take on the role of booster-in-chief.
Finally, there is the problem that all European governments are facing: the strategy that no politician dare declare. With the Europe-wide lifting of economic restrictions, it is evident that each government has decided to allow a controlled spread of the virus. The alternative is to keep people locked up indefinitely.
More illnesses and more deaths (with vigilance over vulnerable groups) have become more sustainable than lockdowns, total or partial. The Swedes got it right – not on the details but broadly. Sweden’s former state epidemiologist, Johan Giesecke, has insisted from the beginning that the problem was not of preventing infections and deaths but controlling their timing.
Like all politicians, Abela cannot say this. Nor can he allow some people to go to work but not others. Anti-discrimination laws and norms make it difficult to make special rules for vulnerable people. (“You’re obese! Stay home!” isn’t a good headline and would sound worse in court.) So, he will probably have unfortunate cases thrown at his door in the coming months.
But if we want an adult conversation about this pandemic – and in preparation for the next one that might not be too many years away – we need to recognise that any prime minister, from whichever political party, is likely to have faced the situation.
On his part, Abela needs to recognise that he has his work cut out to earn more trust from the social partners and professional associations. It’s trust he’s going to need in the turbulent times ahead.