Not a minority report

The catalyst for this article is a report involving an analysis of feedback gathered from PN regional assemblies held after the general election. As with my previous article, this is neither a critique, nor an elaboration, nor a response. I undertake this little exercise not as a PN activist (I am not) but because it prompts some reflections on how success and failure in a party’s bid for power are frequently understood.

My analysis will not make the following assumptions:

1) That a party will inevitably win an election provided it has the “right formula” (be this considered in terms of “the right message”, “the right campaign”, etc.). There might be situations where a party is, objectively, not in a position to win an election.

2) That there is such a creature as “the people” that elects the politicians most apt at promoting the “common good” (a concept much richer than what many normally take it to entail). “The people” are made up of different groups, individuals and social classes, with different real or perceived interests.

Within this complex and contradictory assemblage, many have the tendency, consciously or unconsciously, to equate the common good with their own interests, real or perceived. Obviously, this does not exclude those who can elevate themselves to conceive of the common good independently of their own interests, or those who callously ignore the notion altogether or think it is a notion for suckers.

The following are reflections inspired by media reports about the report, focusing on two features.

Presence on the ground

The report emphasised that the PN needed to be more present in localities, pointing to the lack of synch between various candidates and voters; something that irked several candidates and MPs. Personally, I think that the report is correct but only partly. Several candidates were very active on the ground. Yet, the party was, at times, missing when it came to issues that concerned particular localities. There were instances where local committees and councillors (rather than candidates) could have done more but failed to do so.

This can be illustrated in relation to specific issues that concerned certain communities. Most of these involved development projects. In some cases, the party failed to take a clear stand, perhaps hesitant to irritate the construction sector.

Contrast this with Joseph Muscat pre-2013, who was a master at taking a stand on particular issues while, at the same time, assuring the construction sector he was not against construction per se.

In other instances, where the party (at national or local level) had taken a definite stand, representatives in towns and villages failed, in the weeks prior to the election, to drive home to residents what was at stake for the locality if Labour were re-elected. In other cases, the party engaged in acts of political self-harm, such as Pembroke PN representatives voting in favour of a deal with db.

So, my impression is that, while there were failings at the local level, these cannot merely be attributed to a lack of communication between candidates and residents.

A modern inclusive party

The report suggested that the party project a more “modern, inclusive” image and engage more with naturalised voters. This leads to the question of what one ought to understand by “modern” and “inclusive”. Does this entail adopting a liberal stand on some issues? And, if so, which?

The PN engaged in political self-harm when its Pembroke representatives voted in favour of a deal with db- Michael Grech

I will not consider whether I agree or disagree with this but merely make observations on whether this would have translated into electoral success. I would note, though, the party has, image-wise, shed the Religio et Patria guise of yesteryear. Its manifesto promised to improve services related to IVF and to support wider anti-discrimination protections in relation to sexual minorities.

The fact that certain prominent PN figures never attempted to conceal a lifestyle that is not 100% in conformity with the Church’s teachings further indicates that it would take someone with a fantastic imagination to still consider the current PN as the party of the altar.

The talk about inclusion frequently assumes a flat dichotomy – liberal versus conservative, inclusive versus exclusive, Catholic versus secular – with Labour throwing its dice on the ‘right’ side of each dichotomy. This is a bit simplistic. Labour, the main ‘winner’ in this inclusive-image contest, has in fact been playing a much smarter game.

Take the Catholic-secular dichotomy. While, at the national level (the level within the radar of many middle-class individuals), Labour has pushed unprecedented secular measures, elsewhere on the ground it has concretely supported and sponsored all forms of religious paraphernalia (with many a cleric apparently preferring the sacrality of statues to that of embryos), thus avoiding alienating segments of its grassroots who regard these as part of their identity.

The same holds for naturalised voters. The Muslim candidate move may have attracted to Labour that part of the Muslim community which had a vote but was not particularly bothered with elections. Yet, some Labour activists on the ground could simultaneously convince other potential Labour voters that this would not entail having a Muslim MP; that they could still vote for the party while boycotting the candidate in question.

An inclusive guise per se is, therefore, no guarantee of electoral success. It must be worn smartly.

There are other factors which, to my mind, should also have featured in PN post-mortems but which were missed by many. One is the PN’s inability to fish among third-party voters, whose vote was essentially a protest vote; failing to bring home the point that elections are ultimately measured in terms of the gap between the two major parties and that a Labour landslide would give that party carte blanche.

There was also the fact that the PN campaign was almost exclusively positive, instead of treading a virtuous middle path between being proactive and acting as a critical watchdog. There were other factors... but I have to draw the article to a close.

Michael Grech is a lecturer in philosophy within the Faculty of Education at the University of Malta.