Billboard Battle

 

1^st February 2008

The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom

If you still have any doubt that we are very close to the calling of a general election you were probably sick at home this week and did not get to see the billboard battle now going on between the two political parties.

Keen observers cannot help noticing the different strategies being adopted. Labour’s campaign has a single-minded focus to exploit the electorate’s fatigue with the PN government and its desire for a refreshing change to prove that democracy is still alive and kicking.

Labour’s campaign so far is slick and effective. It does not denigrate its opponents nor does it make bold claims of Labour’s own merits. It merely exploits its most powerful trump card by stressing the electorate’s wish for change and tying it in with a label for a new beginning. While the electorate desire for change is palpable I am not sure that the electorate is equally enthusiastic about a new beginning.

The answer to the electorate’s fatigue is change but a new beginning does not necessarily have much to do with it. The electorate’s desire to cut out the arrogance that accumulates with long tenure of power does not necessarily equate to a concept of a new beginning. On the contrary the electorate wants continuity of policies but with fresh faces and without arrogance, waste and corruption.

The concept of a new beginning is in fact somewhat out of tune with the mood of the electorate who may judge it as just another political attempt to re-write history as if the sun started to shine on these islands on the first day of coming to power. Labour should not forget that the success they had in 1996 was in fact centred on a message of continuity, building on what was inherited and making all citizens feel comfortable with a new government that would be a government for all as the slogan was Ic-cittadin l-ewwel (The citizen first).

On the other hand the message of change is music to the electorate’s ear and somebody wiser than I recently gave me a reflection that I wish to share with my readers. He made the point that the desire for change among the electorate is so acute that Labour can do nothing to foul it up. Basically Labour cannot lose the election even if they want to. The margin of manoeuvrability for a new government, following EU membership and euro adoption and after privatising practically all that could be privatised, is so limited that whoever is elected cannot do much harm. So the risk of electing a new government, even if perceived as an unproven experiment, is so small that the desire for change can easily justify voting for Labour irrespectively.

The PN’s billboard campaign is by contrast two-pronged. They are in fact two separate campaigns running in parallel.

The first is full of bright colours focused on the personality of Dr Lawrence Gonzi and depicting him as a person you can actually share a beer with in the pub next door. This is meant to leverage his personal likeability and his being a small refreshing oasis of fresh water in an otherwise dry desert of personalities who have been too long in power and who with very few exceptions have promised a lot and delivered very little.

The second parallel campaign is meant to scare people off Labour by reminding them of the views expressed by the Opposition Leader that Malta should have joined the euro at a more competitive rate. This campaign is wrapped in dull monochromes with characters in funeral grim faced mode.

The effectiveness of this campaign is very doubtful as voters are hardly impressed by unreal hypothesis about an issue which has in any case been sealed by our joining the euro. In fact we come a full circle to the words of wisdom from my friend that these issues are no longer relevant as the elected government will not have any discretion to make such mistakes, if mistakes they were.

From a purely economic point of view (setting aside political convenience and the lack of ingenuity by an opposition party to promise to take such measures which are normally only taken by a new government immediately after being elected so that they can be blamed on the predecessor) the argument that we have joined the euro at too hard a rate is a strong one. So strong in fact that John Dalli, a former PN Finance Minister, expressed similar concerns in his recent writings.

But arguing that a more competitive rate would have reduced the amount of Euro we got for our Maltese lira on changeover is an over simplification.

It ignores the basic fact that the economy is composed of many moving parts and it is unfair just to plug one moving part and expose it on a billboard as if the other moving parts would have stayed the same and therefore do not matter.

If we joined at a more competitive rate and accompanied it by other measures that I have often referred to in my writings way back in 2004/2005 we could easily be enjoying a vibrant export led economic growth exploiting our full potential which would have permitted us to earn more euro month in month out even if we could have got a bit less euro for our Maltese lira on changeover.

We could also probably have better values for our non-financial assets in the form of real estate and local equities which could have more than made up for the sacrifice of accepting a lower conversion rate.

Complicated economic arguments do not suit themselves well to billboard exposition that demands catchy one-liners.