The Partit Laburista’s 39,000 margin
of victory in the last elections represented a truly extraordinary result and will have implications –
both positive and negative. Robert Abela is now able to declare that the
umbilical cord with Joseph Muscat has been well and truly severed. He now can present himself as a PM
willing to start afresh, free of the awkward baggage, stained with red, which
saddled the government he led since 2020. Practically a clean slate. Quasi tabula
rasa. Unless that infamous Paragraph 506 really does mean that fresh bloodstains
will taint this administration too.
However, this is about the Partit
Nazzjonalista, still rolling in the dust following the third consecutive
electoral thrashing the biggest one yet in numerical terms – and possibly the
most humiliating. It follows a heinous murder the state was partly responsible
for, quite credible allegations of massive corruption, a pandemic, grey-listing, trade difficulties in the wake of the situation in
Ukraine, a breakdown in relations between the Abela and his highly-popular predecessor
and other serious problems the PN should have capitalised on – but managed not
to. A considerable feat.
Voters delivered a terrible blow to
the PN. What were the reasons? Their name is probably legion. Let’s list and
discuss some of the more outstanding.
The in-fighting within the PN, once a
model of unity when Fenech Adami ruled the roost, must be a factor in the
defeat. Remember the time when Lino Spiteri (the best Prime Minister Malta
never had, in my humble opinion) used to, apparently contemptuously - but probably
in envy - refer to relations within the PN as ‘’harmonious
as the choir in Nabucco’’, while his own party was patently riven with internal
feuds? How times change.
Prior to this election, any aria about
unity sung by the PN candidates prior would have been ear-achingly discordant,
despite the best efforts of the choirmaster. On the level of internal unison, the
party certainly did not hit the right notes with the electorate.
It’s not within the scope of this
article to delve into the PN’s labyrinthine internal dynamics. They are
complicated to understand, and it’s difficult to explain them to others but, behind the peaceful façade Grech
sought to project lurks a great deal of animosity between individuals. Take Jason
Azzopardi and Adrian Delia, for example. Bernard Grech did his level best to
hammer out a truce between them, and there have been no more public rifts for
many months, but nobody believes that relations between them have improved. The
snide remarks against Delia in the blogs associated with the Civil Society
juxtaposed with their uncritical lionising of Azzopardi, are a significant
marker of the acrimonious state of affairs between the two. Even if that were a
mistaken belief and the two have become like Damon and Pythias, the general
perception is that the two are the best of enemies. Voters tend to shy away from
a house seen to be divided unto itself.
Secondly, the promises. In all
fairness, the PN made some excellent proposals. The ten "new" sectors are
exciting and appear to be potentially fruitful on many levels. There was much
to commend even about the controversial trackless tram pledge - as a concept. The
apparent difficulties tied to its implementation do not seem to be utterly
insoluble. But the constant editing of the manifesto, the apparent disagreement
between PN stalwarts about their most eye-catching proposal, and the very late
publication of the costings, detracted from the attractiveness of the
programme. The party came across as vacillating and incompetent precisely in
association
with that aspect of the campaign – the electoral programme- which should have
garnered them most votes.
Thirdly, while the PN may do its best
to choose the most gaudy and attractive wrapping paper in which to package
itself, it cannot escape the reality that the gift inside would not excite in many
people a frenzied desire to possess it. Besides the internal wrangling, the perceived
uncertainties and incompetence, there is the question of how the voters
appraise the ability of the party to perform in a crucial area: the economy and
finances. It’s all very well to cost projects with an impressive array of
figures, but the bottom line for many voters is that the PN itself is
practically indigent, owes millions to the state and, were it a business, it
would have long folded up. Despite any number of degrees and diplomas and the
glossy literature, would you employ a stockbroker who is personally bankrupt to invest your
savings?
Fourthly, there is question of pitching
your criticism of adversaries believably. At times the PN seems as if it truly believes
the opprobrium it heaps upon the PL and I’m not referring to what is
objectively wrong with the PL, like its tolerance and facilitation of corruption
and the criminal destruction of the environment. The PL has manifestly
performed admirably well in certain areas. Scorning and distorting what is
clearly positive is off-putting to the more discerning, non-partisan citizens
whose votes the PN needs like oxygen. Portraying the PL as neglectful of the
poorer sections of society, for example, is a gross twisting of the reality many have
experienced over the past 10 years. Telling that to pensioners whose income has
improved markedly – or to their relatives – and to those, previously barely
subsisting on social benefits amounting to €500 monthly, who are now employed and getting by, will not have gone down well. Objective observers know it’s not
true for a considerable number of people who were on the poverty line prior to
2013.
Moreover, by rubbishing the increases
and minimising the effects of better benefits and improved work opportunities will have strengthened
the belief that the PN is cut off from social realities. Therefore, the breast-beating and
the promises to improve matters on that score will have sounded hollow over the
past weeks.
So, what can the PN do if it
is to repurpose itself as a credible alternative government? Let’s consider the
fourth factor mentioned above: perhaps consider acknowledging
openly that the
government has performed very ably in some sectors. Why not publicly
recognise that the quality of life for many people in the lower financial strata
has improved - and promise to do even better and work on those areas where there
is still a degree of suffering, rather than attempt to stamp a false reality on
the voters’ consciousness? A radical notion: if one were to employ honesty,
rather than the usual politicking through the rubbishing of adversaries, it might
shock voters so much they might actually vote for one.
This honesty in politics business is
very much tied to political maturity, which among other things would entail taking public
responsibility for one’s failures. Blaming the debacle on the payment of
cheques a few days before voting-day and other abuses of the power of incumbency (undoubtedly ploys which,
at the very least, raise questions) for the increase in the size of the defeat
may help somewhat salve the pain of the bewildered PN core voters, but it
does nothing to attract the thinking floating-voters – the only ones who can help
the PN to a better result next time round. Any person of normal intelligence
will realise that the more credible polls were predicting a colossal PL victory
months before the first cheque thumped the first letter-box.
The PN has to sort itself out
before even starting to fantasise about regaining power in 2027. There are the
party finances to put in order. PN has been pretty secretive about the
situation, giving the PL social media supporters an excellent opportunity to bandy
about all sorts of figures (actually no, not all sorts; just some pretty
astronomical ones) about the numbers in bold red at the bottom of its accounts.
Even if the situation is dire as some think it is, it would be better to come
clean with the electorate it is trying to convince and present a credible plan
for getting out of the mess. That would probably set the voters’ minds at rest
that the PN is not entirely bereft of the financial brains required to run
the party’s finances – and the country’s.
Then there is the probably even
thornier issue of internal divisions. No party can ever be free of a degree of ideological
or personal conflict within
its ranks, but the disagreement bedevelling the PN at present is beyond the
pale. Voters cannot forget that a faction within the PN – whether justifiably
or not is not the issue – forced the leader out despite his popularity among the
grass-roots. That very same former leader was often on the same podium and the
same TV screens with the ones who brought about his downfall - a constant
reminder of the simmering dispute. He, or the ring-leaders of the coup which
ousted him, may have to go. While the party grandees wishing to avoid bloodshed
could hope that in five years’ time all will be forgotten, Delia’s many supporters
are now baying for his enemies’ blood with the pain of the defeat adding
decibels to the volume of their howls. As far as this complete outsider to things
Nationalist can see they do not appear to be willing to settle for anything
less than a purge.
Bernard Grech cannily realised
long ago that, with Metsola safely ensconced in Brussels, there is no credible alternative to his
leadersip. His will have his work cut out but he must start with the idea that
the imbalance will not be removed by blaming cheques, but by treating the
electorate as intelligent individuals rather than a bunch of avaricious ġaħans
as his more embittered supporters tend to maintain.
He has five years in which to try
and transform this apparently washed-up, has-been pugilist of a party with a
glorious past but little else into a fighting force ready to step into the ring
and confront the apparently invincible champion. At stake there is the
glittering belt of power, but more than that there is the absolute necessity to
fight the good fight in the name of democracy.
The dangers of a situation where elections are almost a
formality hardly bear writing about. You don’t have to be a die-hard
Nationalist to wish Grech and the PN well.
