Adrian Delia came in from the cold and no one had any reason not to accept him. Photo: Jonathan Borg

The Nationalist Party has to understand that it owes an explanation to, and not disapprove of, people critical of the new leadership. The criticism comes from a number of factors, which the party may be wrongly interpreting as resistance to change.

The party has been struggling for several years to come to terms with how to do politics.  The reason for that is that it seems to have abandoned the concept of self-discipline and internal control.  A party with such missing qualities falls into the quandary that it currently finds itself in.

No wonder that many passionate party followers are wondering what happened to the party that made the country that we know today, the party that formed the basis of the current booming economy, the party that knew restraint and took time to set an organic evolution for our society rather than an opportunistic stance; the party of nurture rather than one of hunting and feasting today as if tomorrow never comes; a party which worked laboriously to build and guard the country’s reputation.

Many people who saw that party crumble are justifiably asking what is going on and are seeing solutions for the party and country in a restoration of past prides which won and which worked for us all.  Not that the party’s triumphant past did not fall into some kind of rut and that the PL’s ability to execute fast and efficiently was not required. The PN has let itself sit on its laurels to the point of paralysis. This found a PL ready to pounce on the opportunity and execute.

There are many reasons why people are having doubts on the direction the party is taking to emerge from its crisis. One reason is why this party let itself end up losing two major elections and a few others in the last years.

Losing elections is normal and part of the democratic game.  The PN has not lost elections as part of the game but has failed miserably. It’s one thing failing an examination for a few marks but it’s another getting a very low mark; the latter shows that you have not been doing your homework and it is diversionary to put it down simply to people wanting a change.  Therefore, judicious party thinkers are asking why was the homework not done and how does the new leadership plan to change all that.

Secondly these people are asking why the party had such a rush in looking for a new leader. If Simon Busuttil wanted out, could the party not have organised a more structured succession? Indeed the leadership election has revealed that the party has internally also failed over the last several years to develop worthy internal leaders. It failed in succession planning and people are therefore justified in seeking answers as to why this happened in a party accustomed to being spoilt for choice when it comes to capable politicians.

Thirdly, during this leadership election we had two major beacons coming from the party echelons. One was when the party’s ethics committee told voters that one leadership candidate did not satisfy their quest for information. The other was when the former leader advised that same candidate to seriously consider withdrawing from the race.

Those two events remain mysteriously open and thinking minds need a closure on both.

The PN failed in succession planning and people are therefore justified in seeking answers as to why this happened in a party accustomed to being spoilt for choice when it comes to capable politicians

Fourthly even the way the new leader found himself in Parliament begs a question. Is it not obvious that people associate the sacrifice of the vacating member to his alleged wrongdoing? The party here again showed weakness in attaining firm decisiveness by letting the accused set his own punishment instead of freely letting the judges carry out their work without interference. In such situations there are those who expect leadership in the absence of which they keep mulling over whether this is the party they know and whether it is the party which can take charge of its own destiny.

Fifthly, some serious allegations have been made against the new PN leader.  People would have preferred that they had not been made because at least we would have had a normal leadership election campaign with qualities to focus on instead of allegations and divisiveness which will linger on naggingly unless urgently dealt with.

Adrian Delia came in from the cold and no one had any reason not to accept him.  It is normal that he is scrutinised more profoundly than one who is already popular and known to the followers. Therefore it is not correct to turn the case into one of persecution and ignore giving explanations and clarifications. The latter is a major priority if the party can think of a future mirroring its past, or rather remote past.

Sixthly, the new leader is claimed to have reached his position through a democratic exercise. It is certainly a good attempt at democracy but doubts linger here too.  Only half of the candidates were fielded for public scrutiny. The voting PN public was denied voting for two out of the four presenting themselves.

It may be true that councillors are representatives of the party followers, but is the system convincingly objective? Moreover who are the PN voting public? There were 135,000 PN voters at the last general election. Of these, only 20,000 are party members and this is highly understandable and should in no way be indicative of any sort of indifference on the part of PN sympathisers.

However it begs the question whether putting the vote of half of the fielding candidates to a mere 15 per cent of the real population of PN voters is sufficiently representative. The attempt at democracy was good and commendable but lacks authentic democratic sophistication.

Party enthusiasts, not fanatics, but enthusiasts of party principles and achievements and enthusiasts who think and take nothing for granted and leave nothing to chance and are intelligent enough to avoid blind faith, are logically feeling the impact of the change of this leadership on the PN spirit which they have come to know.

The party must understand that such people are somehow bewildered by a sense of detachment from the party character they know and have become accustomed to. It could be a good change and one cannot exclude the possibility of some nostalgic lamentation among those who think too much, but these people need their time to adjust and are entitled to have their questions answered.

It is only fair and normal for thinking people to have a change of environment explained. The PN cannot afford to overlook the need for such people to be cajoled and given the necessary assurance of continuity of the traditional governance principles which the party always upheld.

It is not right to expect them to be simply happy with the hope of improved chances of winning future elections.  When you change house you need to develop a new sense of homeliness. It would be another PN gross mistake if such a basic feeling is ignored.

The PN is the party which always upheld the basic principles of logic and reasoning.  It cannot now solve its crises by turning to winning at all costs even at the cost of what made it great in the past and shy away from answering basic questions.

More than opposition to Delia’s installation, there is a dire need for the new leader to diffuse the prevailing sense of alienation and unequivocally address all the above pending matters with the party followers and deserters.

Mario Galea is a corporate and business advisor.