Malta is living in a very ostensibly twisted shape of itself.

Predominantly due to the government’s visible and not-so-visible control of nearly everyone and everything, this nation is living in a hushed state of asphyxia.

Not even the grave and despicable political circumstances which repeatedly occurred during this past decade have rendered it vulnerable. Many political scholars have questioned why the Nationalist opposition has recurrently failed to present itself as a real credible alternative.

Scientific surveys, despite their margin of error (sic!), have consistently come to one outcome – a beaten opposition. This is of great concern, not because of a numerical deficit between the two parties but because an ever-increasing decline can lead to an unprecedented parliamentary majority.

That would mean, that despite a democratically and legally elected government, it would enjoy a sense of absoluteness, much more than it already enjoys. That state of affairs would be the very opposite of parliamentary democracy.

Why has the PN persistently continued to alienate itself from the favour of the electorate?

Why has it fallen from grace after being exceptionally credited as a relentless catalyst of change – including Malta’s accession to the European Union – to the extent that the incumbent president of the European Parliament is one of us?

Why has the PN faltered into a sense of unconditional hopelessness and numbness?

For one, the PN appears determined to remain firmly clawed into the not-so-recent past. The past is indeed a mirror for the present but not when it starts to obscure the future. In fact, for the younger generation, the past simply equates to what the Magna Carta is to me, history.

The PN seems to still be ostensibly oblivious to the fact that today’s 16-year-old voters were only six when it was last in government. Time-warped within its self-created continuum and absorbed by its own gravity while ignoring the landscape out there.

Actually, for most of the electorate, the PN isn’t presenting anything tangible (or intangible). Proposals which can slowly but steadily lead to a numerical shift and this regardless of all is good intentions. Even if there were, the electorate has permanently deafened itself, thus ignoring anything emanating from that party, for they know that in the PN’s existing state, little is attainable.

Just in case it’s not clear, this is not about the party leader.

At least, not alone. In fact, there were way too many leaders over the span of a decade.

This is about: (i) a serious deficiency in taking bold decisions; (ii) the fear of disturbing the status quo; (iii) the repulsion towards constructive criticism; (iv) the confusion between being conservative and fundamentalist and, most importantly, (v) embracing the fact that society has changed, maybe too fast, but it did. It reeks of a patriarchal attitude.

The PN appears determined to remain firmly clawed into the not so recent past- Alessandro Farrugia

Also, there are too many splinter groups, internally and externally, with many trying to annihilate the others to better secure their spot. Too many jacks-of-all-trades, too many who engage externally to ravage others, too many who hold resentment for one thing or another, too many who preach from their soapbox seemingly touched by divine intervention, too many who seek advice in private only to use it against others in public and too many still trapped in and mystified by the past.

The PN is still engaged in a conflict it itself created and which goes beyond the guise of a ‘mosaic of ideas’.

The PN needs (a) a serious rebranding exercise acclimatised to today’s political realities and leaving in the past what belongs to the past; (b) a media arm which truly lives up to the mandatory political requisites it was created for in the first place; (c) the shedding of individual egos and a real sense of acceptance and collegiality; (d) discipline; (e) respect towards authority and administration; (f) a corporate approach in the management of its assets and liabilities; (g) a compact shadow cabinet; (h) a planned strategy behind its every decision; (i) less meaningless press releases and more substance; (j) effective and functional sectional committees for informed data and the understanding that there is only one common and noble cause. For there is a whole nation craving for an opposition that can provide better prospects for Malta.

The PN is not dead. Embracing its values gives us nothing to be penitent about. As Margaret Thatcher once aptly said: “Socialists don’t like people to do things for themselves but they like them to be dependent on the state. You never build a great society that way.” And what is the state of the nation and society today?

I will surely get my fair share of criticism for this. After all, as one key member of the PN administration courteously put it a few days ago, those who speak up are opportunists, armchair critics, cowards and potentially harbour personal ambitions.

The PN fails to interpret scientific surveys in their true perspective and, instead, it encourages supporters to find refuge and consolation within their margin of error. When the logic becomes illogical, one cites personal reasons for a swift exit, just like I did. There were others before me and others after.

The PN has several big white elephants in the room. If bold decisions continue to be postponed and its attitude and outlook remain on this track, then most will remain unchanged. For its significance will be felt in its absence, very much like the air we breathe.

Alessandro Farrugia is a former PN communications director.