Let me make two facts crystal clear at the outset. Firstly, I have no official role in the Nationalist Party. I am just a member. This conceptually makes me a ‘shareholder’. Still, I do have an interest in political philosophy, so, perhaps, this makes me an ‘informed shareholder’.
Secondly, I am Catholic. I try to live my faith and practise it like any other Catholic.
These caveats are important because what comes next is unpleasant for people like myself falling under the two categories above.
Following the two April surveys some facts, as I interpret them, need to be reckoned. First of all, they are heartening results. Nevertheless, they are not enough. If the PN wants to win the next election, opinion polls should be showing the two major parties neck and neck.
Furthermore, I read quite a few commentaries about the surveys. I have to say many commentators got many things right, methinks. But some stand out more than others.
For example, the need for the PN not to appear as a confessional party. Formally, it is not. Nowhere in the new statute is there mention of some confessional creed.
The principles may indeed be inspired by Christian values but they are also lay values shared by most cultures around the globe. Let us be clear, believing that life is a basic value is no political sin. Excuse the contradictory pun. However, it may be true that some are still not understanding that a party is a particular social construct. It is not an NGO like civil society movements nor is it a congregation like the Church. A party is a coalition of individuals who believe in common (not single) political ideals and, through its elected representatives, that party aspires to govern over the whole population in the direction of the common good. So, you see, the PN has to think as a bonus pater familias, with diligence and inclusivity. There has to be a distinction between religious belief and political action. Understandably, one may influence the other.
One has to understand that Malta has changed drastically
Correspondingly, a party does not symmetrically share the goals of an NGO. Even when compared with the ones which have converging aims. A political party is a government-in-waiting. It is elected for the whole population. Not for a segment.
Also, one has to understand that Malta has changed drastically and it did so before 2013. Those changes have been now consolidated. Noticeably, the 16 to 30 bracket display these changes very starkly.
Likewise, one has to understand that the PN’s internal arrangement is still appearing outmoded and slow. This should not become a blame game. It should just be something to improve. Professionalism should trump personalism. One has to respect those persons within the party structures but one has also to understand that one cannot solve the problems one has created on the same level and with nearly exactly the same machinery that subsidised that same problem.
Also, one does not send the old generals to the frontline. One keeps them safe in the war room. Though it is a smart move to have a few experienced combatants on the field. These should act as tactical facilitators between the war room and the younger frontline. I am a theorist but I cannot ignore the pragmatic import of Richard Feynman’s statement that if theory disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. When the latter happens, reality testing dictates the need for a different approach.
I think such an approach may help the PN to win the next election but it needs to immediately (i) rev up its machinery and (ii) come up with big out of box ideas.
Just to mention a couple of outrageous ideas.
Something like an aggressive afforestation project from north to south of the Maltese islands, which would delight tree-huggers (like myself) and all the rest including hunters, trappers and bird watchers for diverse reasons.
The boost of biophilic design, which would not alarm developers and would keep the population healthy physically and mentally.
These two ideas would create work and well-being for many and would be a beautiful legacy for the PN.
But I may be wrong.
Alan Xuereb, lawyer, linguist and political philosophy author