When measuring the extent of political setbacks, the 2017 PN electoral defeat was not an unqualified disaster. The PN held its ground when faced with an expertly advised, incredibly financed, incumbent Labour Party. Elections come and go, and elections are won and lost. Periods in government alternate with bouts in opposition.
Ever since the unjustified and uncalled for resignation of Simon Busuttil, the PN has seen no respite from an overwhelming decline into chaos and irrelevance. The leader’s departure, unnecessary as it was, occurred in a manner that provoked a deep sense of disorientation and created a dangerous leadership vacuum.
There was a conspicuous absence of interest in the leadership post from prominent members of the veteran and experienced entourage that made up the collective leadership of Busuttil. This instigated a competition for the top post by a range of good, adequate, inadequate and downright inappropriate contenders. This was a bad omen that should have alerted those responsible to put the brakes on and slow down the leadership transition, if a transition there had to be.
On well-founded grounds, an official party ethics committee requested one contender to practically pull out of the race. This step back did not occur, and the inappropriate contender went on to attract the support of more than 30 per cent of party members and so obtained the post.
So, it followed that, for a leader, the party gained an inexperienced, unclearly motivated outsider with dubious baggage – a leader that attracted a serious negative censure from the party even before assuming the onerous leadership role.
So, many months since that fateful event, the party has confusedly staggered forward, sideways and backwards, from one mishap to another. There was the condemnable, awkward, rushed reaction to a heavily censored Egrant report – a clumsy case of a vicious attack against a fellow party member. There were, and still are, absolutely dismal and relentlessly diminishing trust ratings from the electorate.
There were the EU elections which saw the party lose an EU parliamentary seat. There was the unprecedented success of Roberta Metsola and David Casa – two candidates widely considered not favourites of, and under-supported by, the party leadership. And the less that is said about the results of the local councils’ elections, the better.
These events indicate clear messages coming from the broad base of the Nationalist electorate. Evidently, a high number of habitually loyal PN voters are rebelling and are not supportive of the leadership team confirmed by party councillors. Following the choices made by party members and councillors, a broad band of loyalty has been manifestly lost.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric about the ownership of the party – who really are the owners of the party? The answer is quite simple. It certainly does not prevalently belong to members, to councillors, to parliamentarians or leadership teams. Rather, it primarily belongs to PN voters who, through their votes and their participation in trust rating surveys, send messages to the rulers and activists of the party.
Now, dissenting PN voters do have valid reasons as to why they are withholding their loyalty and support. These valid reasons cannot be countered and neutralised just by what have become mantra calls for unity. Unity does not materialise as you call for it; rather, unity might come about only as you work for it.
Unity does not materialise as you call for it; rather, unity might come about only as you work for it
If you have determined and well-positioned collaborators within a party structure, it is not difficult to dominate groups of members and councillors and get their support. However, a similar dominance over a vast electorate is a different matter and difficult to achieve. There now appears to be a serious disconnect between what appear to be smug rulers and a good number of the ruled.
A snapshot of the PN electorate after the councillors’ vote still indicates a significant pocket of disillusioned and no-longer-collaborative supporters. Can these people be attracted back to the party? Definitely not through fatuous calls for unity or magnanimous offers of forgiveness. These forgiveness outbursts sound so ridiculous that they do not even offend.
These alienated PN electors need to be convinced that the Opposition is being genuinely, effectively and ably led. Apart from a few exceptions, PN members of Parliament appear very despondent.
Electors desperately need these MPs to be inspired, to courageously and assertively make their voices heard on so many struggles and issues being taken up by NGOs.
Electors cringe and lose heart when MPs, who enjoy super protection and immunity in pursuit of their duties, on occasion communicate with the press on condition of anonymity. MPs expressing their opinions and views on condition of anonymity is truly an incredible feat!
The PN needs to be led, and be seen to be led, in a manner that is underpinned by morally correct principles and beliefs. Clear updated stands on so many issues need to be taken.
They need commitment to decent governance, a consistent and unwavering condemnation of corruption, no more ambiguous reactions to corruption, coherent positions on sustainable development and the abuse of the environment, et cetera – the list is endless. In 2017, the party approved and adopted credible proposals on all these issues.
Politicians should not be enticing voters to benefit from transgressions.
Politicians should not entertain but discourage uneducated, unreasonable and illegal expectations. Yes, valid politicians should, and do, lead by example.
Even if in reality this might not be so true, in comparing itself with its Labour counterpart, the Nationalist elector base has always perceived itself as more virtuous, morally decent and honest. Any apparent departure from these standards instantly provokes a desertion reaction from so many PN electors. These electors do not subscribe to victory at any cost. They do not want a victory that implies an adoption of negative patterns of behaviour and negative attitudes similar to those of the opponent.
Everything counts. A leader’s not so competent and pristine personal financial management worries supporters since the implications of being vulnerable to pressure and threats comes into play with possible perilous consequences.
It hurts decent PN people to hear negative innuendoes constantly directed at their leader.
If the leadership team seems unable to retain for the party the loyalty of all its supporters, how much less will this team be able to attract those essential marginal floating voters?
Is the now council-approved leadership team capable to rise to the challenge?
That is the ultimate question that needs to be answered, and the answer is not, as yet, a loud and convincing ‘yes’. The councillors’ vote is what it is; the reality on the ground is what counts. That is where tests will be passed or failed.