When it comes to politics, our country is polarised.  Our partisan way of looking at things has blurred our outlook on reality. Rivalry between parties is natural and we have become accustomed to accusations and mud-slinging between opposing parties. But what about intraparty rivalry and discord? Is this healthy and expected in a democratic society?

During these past weeks, we have witnessed great rivalry and discord within the Nationalist Party. It has reached a stage where Adrian Delia was defeated in two confidence votes: one among his MPs and the other in the executive council. The party’s general council will now vote on Saturday on whether the party members should be invited to confirm embattled Adrian Delia as party leader or hold a leadership election. 

Many PN stalwarts are hurt and flabbergasted with such discord within the party that they love so much. But, I ask, shouldn’t we, as citizens, in a democratic country, feel glad that such things are going on so openly? Are not discords and conflicts part of the democratic process that goes on continuously within democratic societies? 

What should surprise us are not the discords and conflicts but the way these are tackled and the reactions by a few to such disagreements. The 19 MPs who voted to oust Delia as leader of the opposition were labelled ‘rebels’ by some journalists. Edwin Vassallo, a pro-Delia MP, called them ‘disloyal’ and said that they must face the consequences of their decision.

The way Delia reacted after losing votes of no confidence both among his MPs and in the executive council, shows that he didn’t have an inkling of what democracy stands for. Singling out MPs who voted against him and saying publicly that his confidence in them “can never be recovered” did not help the democratic process.

Democracy and democratic institutions do not exclude rivalry, discord and conflict. On the contrary, due to the fundamental principles of ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom of conscience’ on which democracy is built, conflict and discord are inevitable.

Let us not for the sake of unity and uniformity bar individuals from speaking out openly for the greater good. I would say, let us encourage such open, frank arguments as long as they are done civilly and in a courteous manner. 

Taking hard decisions for a good cause – to preserve democracy – demands courage and heroism

How disturbing, though, to hear Delia deny reality after having lost a no-confidence vote. “I’ve said it once, twice, three times. I will remain (as party leader) for as long as our people, which means our members, want me to,” he emphatically exclaimed.

How apt are the words of Lentsky and Ziblatt in their scholarly book How Democracies Die when they state: “One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defence of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”

We are all aware that Adrian Delia was legitimately chosen both as leader of the opposition and as PN leader. The fact is that at present, he is no longer backed by the majority of the party. 

Referring to statutes and structures to prove one’s legal position is not sufficient in a democratic society. There exist unwritten norms that are still morally binding. The authors quoted above state in the same book: “Norms are the soft guardrails of democracy; as they break down, the zone of acceptable political behaviour expands, giving rise to discourse and action that could imperil democracy.”

When MPs and members of the executive committee spoke and acted, they did so because of their democratic right to air their complaints for the good of the party and society at large. Allowing individuals to speak out openly, however dissonant their views are, is part of the democratic game. By shutting them up, we would be distorting the rules.

It must have been difficult for MPs like Kirsty Debono and Herman Schiavone to show no confidence in the leader they had been backing since his election. Taking hard decisions, even going against our own allies, for a good cause – to preserve democracy – demands courage and heroism. As Lentsky and Ziblatt proclaim: “No single political leader can end a democracy; no single leader can rescue one, either. Democracy is a shared enterprise.  Its fate depends on all of us.”

In the interview in The Sunday Times of Malta (July 19), Delia seemed to have offered some hope. He said: “Where there is reason, there is always a way out.  Choices have to be made and decisions taken. One has to see what is best for the party at a time when the country needs a strong opposition.”

Delia should realise, though, that a strong opposition can come about only if he steps down as PN leader, and acknowledges that the votes of MPs and the executive council are a free and democratic expression about what is best for the party to embark on the road to success.