The 1,600 councillors eligible to vote in today’s Nationalist Party leadership election shoulder a huge responsibility. Not just for the party they militate in but also for the country – the alternation of power is an essential ingredient in a thriving democracy.
Bernard Grech is uncontested. In a way, he is again a ‘compromise’ candidate, the best person in the circumstances to take the party forward, just as he was after an internal feud outed former leader Adrian Delia.
Then, Grech had won just under 70 per cent of the members' votes. For him to be able to take the ailing, almost moribund party forward by making all the necessary tough decisions to reform it and make it electable again, he needs to be sure the councillors are solidly behind him.
He has spoken of a “serious” and “immediate” restructuring as being the only way for the party to move forward, admitting it is going through difficult times. “We must not only change our rhetoric but the dynamic of how we work together and with others must be transformed. Change must come immediately and with care and skill,” Grech said.
Hopefully, by rhetoric he means being effective and persuasive rather than making empty talk shorn of meaningful intent. Indeed, that is what the councillors ought to watch out for if this is not to be another false start for the Nationalist Party.
Their party needs them to give the leader enough of a margin of victory to be able to steer a clear and steady way ahead. As for Grech, he needs to continuously take them into his confidence and keep them apprised of his plans and vision, discussing the more ‘delicate’ projects with them internally.
By doing so he would not just be more certain of their support but also that of the branches and structures they represent, including the members themselves.
As a Maltese saying so graphically puts it, 100 people will harbour 100 different ideas, so disagreement and dissent there will always be. What matters is that the leader has a strong enough mandate to manage the situation in line with the will of the majority while also respecting the wishes of the minority. After all, a political party is a microcosm of what should be going on in a democratic country.
Beyond the support and understanding of the councillors and the grassroots, Grech will need to surround himself with advisors who are not only loyal and upright but who are first nationalist and then Nationalist.
The party’s recent history shows this is both necessary and doable. When Eddie Fenech Adami became leader in April 1977 he was faced with a formidable challenge: a party in disarray and a country facing serious human rights issues. He made optimum use of the all-round support he enjoyed and of his team of ‘warhorses’ to build a movement that swept to victory, reviving the party and invigorating supporters as well as floating voters.
Admittedly, the task Grech has before him may be even more challenging. The party’s terrible financial situation and its inability to effectively convey its messages to the electorate make the mission tough but not impossible.
These are crucial days for the Nationalist Party as well as for the country. The party councillors have the last word.
Their choice is between letting down both Nationalists and the whole population and building a modern and effective party that will stay true to its basic principles while building an alternative, clear vision for the country.