Officially, a political party is “an organised group of individuals who have the same ideology and who field candidates in a general election in an attempt to get them elected”.
I stand by the definition that a political party’s sole motivation is to gain power to implement the party’s policies. However, the truth is that parties just want to gain power, at all costs, at the risk of becoming populist and ready to dance to anyone’s tune to get their vote, with very vague policies in place and with no real commitment to do anything that will benefit society.
So irrespective of who the party leader is, his/her competence in public speaking, his/her performance on Xarabank, or the charisma and the aura that surrounds him/her, voters should vote for party policies and not base their decision solely on the qualities of the party leader.
Neither should we vote on the basis that one party leader is not corrupt or less corrupt than the other. Not being corrupt should be a given and not a trump card to gain power.
We have to learn how to desensitise the importance of the party leader and concentrate more on the policies being put forward by the party.
Currently, the Nationalist Party is in a state of disarray and confusion, precisely because the onus is around the messenger and not the message.
Adrian Delia proved popular among the party members but never had the backing of the majority of the parliamentary group. The same can be said of Prime Minister Robert Abela, who was voted in by the party members but was not the preferred choice of the Labour MPs.
The difference is that Labour MPs tend to rally religiously behind their leader, who they elevate to deity status (which is probably what led to the current state of affairs), while Adrian Delia remained an unaccepted leader by the majority of PN MPs.
So, although the priority of the current or any future PN leader is to bring unity back to the party, the leader has to see that the party is made relevant in today’s politico-economic crises. Fighting corruption should not be the party’s raison d’être, but the party should find a reason for its existence and create a vision for Malta that will take us beyond the current state of affairs.
As voters we need to know what the PN’s immediate goals are, its readiness to change and the policies it presents to take Malta to the future. According to a study by Deloitte, the success of future governments depends on their readiness to tackle a few drivers of change.
As voters we need to know what the PN’s immediate goals are
We need to know the PN’s stand on demographic changes such as ageing populations, expanding Asian economies, more women at work and an overwhelming increase in migration bringing a mix of different cultures.
We need to know the PN’s stand on societal drivers such as security and privacy and economic drivers, including the rise of digital currencies and transactions, rising income inequalities and the disparity in standards of living.
We need to know what the short- and long-term strategy on education is, to prepare our children for the future challenges. We need to know the party’s position on social issues such as euthanasia and legalisation of marijuana.
We need to know how our healthcare will be developed over the coming years and what is being proposed for our national transport strategy. We need to know the PN’s stand on construction, development and the protection of the environment, unemployment, passport sales, foreign investment and economic growth.
We need to know how a PN in government will strengthen our institutions, not least the independent press. But, ultimately, we need to know what the PN’s long-term vision for Malta is.
Author James Collins had coined the acronym BHAG, which stands for ‘Big Hairy Audacious Goal’ in his book Built to last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. A BHAG is common in many successful enterprises. BHAGs are goals that are bigger and more ambitious than short-term goals. They are “as nearly impossible to achieve without consistently working outside a comfort zone and displaying commitment, confidence and sometimes arrogance”.
The PN always had their fair share of BHAGs. In the 1960s it was independence, in the 1980s it was freedom and democracy, and in the 1990s and after 2000 it was liberalising the economy and European Union membership. These BHAGs were what gave the PN relevance over the years, in an otherwise Labour-inclining country. What’s the PN’s next BHAG?
No BHAG, no party.