It is now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Adrian Delia will not step down as PN leader of his own accord to save his party another electoral drubbing. And he has the president’s backing to boot.

President George Vella has offered an interpretation of the constitution, which favours the clause that says the leader of the party with the largest number of opposition MPs must also be the leader of the opposition.

In deciding not to act, he has overseen another clause which states very clearly that he must remove the leader of the opposition if he loses the confidence of the majority of his parliamentary group.

He has also contradicted a statement he made last February when he had bound himself to take action in line with that specific article of the constitution.

Without majority support from his MPs, the position of the opposition leader would no longer be tenable, he had said.

Vella’s U-turn on that statement is purportedly in the interests of democracy, stability and continuity: he must keep Delia in place because the rebel PN MPs’ nominee for Delia’s replacement is not the leader of the party and that post cannot remain vacant.

With that selective interpretation of the constitution, he has relegated the voices of 16 MPs elected by the people of Malta to a standing inferior to that of PN members.

The former voted in a national election, exercising their sacrosanct democratic prerogative. The latter voted in an internal party leadership contest – but effectively, their will has been raised by the president above that of the people of Malta.

Political parties are there to serve parliament and not the other way around. They exist for one reason alone: to act as conduits for the election of parliamentary candidates. They might as well not exist: parliament could in theory be made up solely of independent MPs.

The president’s decision has made democracy’s fundamental institution subservient to the will of a political party. 

He has also potentially created a constitutional crisis (defined as a problem in the function of government that the constitution is perceived unable to resolve) where there is none.

Had he respected the will of the majority of opposition MPs, as several experts said he was constitutionally bound to do both in letter and spirit, he would have appointed Therese Comodini Cachia as opposition leader. Had he read the constitution holistically – in a way that respects the primacy of parliament in our democracy – the party would have been of no concern to him.

Which takes us full circle: how will Delia and the PN’s internal structures handle the unprecedented crisis that has beset the party? The president has knocked the ball firmly back in their court.

The first signs are ugly: Delia has vowed to purge his shadow cabinet of those he knows to have opposed him in the vote of confidence.

Delia will try to mould the party in his own image despite serious and legitimate concerns – one only has to look at his consistently poor trust ratings – that he is leading it into another electoral brick wall.

Something has to give. There appear two avenues now open to the party, given that most of Delia’s parliamentary group cannot live with him: a split or a new leadership contest. The PN will die or rise from the ashes.

The quicker either of these happen, the more misery will the party – and the country – be spared.