‘No sacred cows in the PN’ – Richard Cachia Caruana

Former Ambassador to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana knows a thing or two about politics and winning elections, having served as Eddie Fenech Adami’s chief of staff and later as an adviser to Lawrence Gonzi. 

Replying to questions put to him by The Sunday Times of Malta, Mr Cachia Caruana weighs in on the troubles facing the PN and the appointment of Louis Galea to oversee much-needed reforms within the party.

As a starting point, do you think a PN ‘grandee’ is the right man for the job, or does the party need a fresh pair of eyes? Do you feel his appointment undermines the PN leadership’s position?

Organisationally, the PN lost its way many years ago and it was only by keeping ahead of the policy ‘curve’ that it managed 36 years of political successes and almost 24 continuous years in government, ending in 2013.

Though it was a long time ago, Louis Galea was the general secretary who, under Eddie Fenech Adami’s leadership, took a disheartened and bullied party organisation in 1976 and turned it into a lean political machine that was streets ahead of the Labour Party. No other former PN general secretary gets close.

It doesn’t mean that they didn’t have successes, but it does mean that when he left the post in 1987, he left the party in a much stronger position than when he took over the post.

While an outsider can advise on what a political party might require at its headquarters, its other levels need someone who knows how these levels can drive political success. We all seem to have forgotten that the party machine must include many coordinated levels other than those parts of the membership that serve in elected positions. The vast proportion of the party membership doesn’t stand for elected office – even internally – but they have a major political communication role in the country as do also those even more numerous traditional PN voters that are not party members. It should also include those people who rarely, if ever, vote PN but believe in putting ‘country before party’.

In the absence of a reform process led by the party leader, Louis Galea is the right person. As to whether his appointment undermines the PN leadership’s position, I am sure Louis was appointed to strengthen the leadership’s position.      

During an interview on Times Talk this week, Dr Galea said it was a mistake to open up voting for the PN’s top leadership positions to paid-up members. Do you agree with this?

Absolutely. I was shocked when this amendment was put forward by the previous leadership. Firstly, because that is the system that existed in the PN before 1977 and it was only when the party congress (made up of all members) was replaced by the General Council (made up of over 1,000 elected representatives of every party level) that real reforms were able to be carried out in the party.

How can you persuade a PL voter to choose PN if you cannot persuade your own activists

Secondly, the UK Conservative party introduced this system after John Major’s term of office and promptly went through three leaders before they could find one who could win a general election.

This is nothing to do with the political maturity or otherwise of the general membership of a party. It is natural for a party’s members to want to choose ‘their’ person – it also happens in US primary elections – but in our system the leader of a party becomes Prime Minister only if the party wins a general election and, therefore, he or she needs to be electable by a majority of the national electorate not the party electorate.

Is the PN’s ‘brand’ damaged beyond repair or can an image overhaul like Labour undertook under Muscat work?

I do not believe the PN’s ‘brand’ is damaged beyond repair but a ‘party brand’ is made up of many things. Image is only one of them – and, in any case, the image has to match the reality. The role of the leader is crucial as we know. Alfred Sant could not win the 1998, 2003 and 2008 general elections just as Joseph Muscat couldn’t lose the 2013 general election.

How can the PN become relevant again? Should it try beat Labour at its own game or go down a different path?

In my opinion, trying to beat Labour at its own game will not work – in fact, I cannot recall any national elections where this tactic did work. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all the PL’s policies are wrong and should be dumped but it does mean that the electorate is unlikely to change ‘the real thing’ for a copy.

The job of the PN is primarily that of forging a majority within the country around a set of governing principles and policies that the electorate recognises as being in its interests. And this relies on effective communication at every level.  

From your experience, how have past PN leaders dealt with infighting, and how has this approached differed from that of the current leadership?

Principally by recognising that it is the leader’s job to create a united party from the many diverse elements that exist within it. Only united parties win and therefore leaders, however charismatic they are, cannot win if they cannot meld the conflicting ambitions and policies in the party around themselves. How can you persuade a PL voter to choose the PN if you cannot persuade your own activists to do so happily rather than with a heavy heart?

This is why leadership in politics is so difficult. The job description of a successful leader doesn’t include getting rid of those who don’t like or trust him or her but it does include the duty to persuade all to work for the common good. Sometimes that can even leave you with a bad taste in your mouth but in politics the electorate chooses you, you don’t choose it.

Is it fair to lay the PN’s meltdown squarely at the present leadership’s feet, or does the problem have deeper roots?

As I said in the aftermath of the EP and local council elections, a sizable minority of the PN voter base reached the conclusion that it was more important to send a message to the PN leader, general secretary, executive committee and general council than to fully challenge Labour. And their message was simple, they do not believe that today’s Nationalist Party can win a general election.

There are, naturally, reasons for the sending of this message that predate the election of the current leader but if he had been on the right track this message – by the only people that can make him prime minister – would not have been sent.  

What would your advice to the present leadership be?

Whether we like it or not, a political party exists to win elections. We can only be grateful that the PN voter base respects the Nationalist Party enough to tell it to get its house in order rather than just writing it off once and for all at the next general election.

The party must now show that it has heard the message, understood it and is totally committed to change whatever needs to be changed. There can be no ‘business as usual’. There can be no delays. There can be no sacred cows.

Key takeaways

■ Louis Galea right man for the job in absence of reform process by leader.

■ PN brand not damaged beyond repair… leader’s role is crucial.

■ Trying to beat Labour at its own game will not work.

■ Charismatic leader cannot win if they cannot meld conflicting ambitions and policies in the party around themselves.