Yesterday the members of the Nationalist Party’s General Council began voting on the most critical decision it has faced in two generations. The vote closes on Saturday. The party is on the edge of the abyss. But it’s an abyss whose edge is distorted by several trick mirrors.
The mirrors create illusions that, for many loyal councillors, complicate a decision that should be easy. A cool head can see that the councillors should vote to have a leadership election.
Under the current leadership, the PN has been draining away support. It lost the European Parliament elections last year by 43,000 votes. It lost the local council elections by 47,000 votes. The PN now controls only 19 out of 68 local councils.
The PN’s electoral results have been poor for over a decade. But they’ve gotten worse under Adrian Delia. His trust ratings show him trailing Robert Abela and most alternative PN leaders.
The PN is divided only on Delia’s leadership. There is no ideological divide when Claudio Grech, the most principled social conservative in the parliamentary group, endorses Therese Comodini Cachia, a centrist, for leader.
The politicians calling time on Delia’s leadership represent the spectrum of the party’s political opinion. There is no geographical divide, either. Even some of Delia’s early backers have lost confidence in his leadership.
What brings this wide range of politicians together is what also united a majority of the party’s executive committee. The PN is facing mortal danger because it’s led by someone with little credibility.
Delia struggles with almost every demographic, in particular with two groups that Labour is working hard to attract: women, especially those under 45, and youth. Delia has managed to pick a quarrel with the youth wing of his own party.
Delia has no way to recover. When he says he does, it only serves to undercut his credibility further. Only someone dishonest, or with complete lack of judgement, would say that.
Stepping back, beginning to walk the path back to safety, needs only one thing: to have a leadership election
There’s another reason his poll numbers will get worse. He has been cagey about his relationship with Yorgen Fenech, who lies at the centre of a web of corruption and, most likely, murder. The reasonable assumption is that more information about Delia’s links to Fenech will emerge once the contents of Fenech’s phone and hard drive are exhibited in court.
The PN not only stands close to the edge of the abyss but continues to walk towards it. On every possible trend – voting behaviour, leadership trust ratings, anecdotal experience – the PN is about to walk right off.
Stepping back, beginning to walk the path back to safety, needs only one thing: to have a leadership election. That decision, in itself, would begin the PN’s renewal.
It would signal to the country at large that the PN believes in checks and balances, and is responsive to public sentiment. It would show that it is the political party with the guts to stand up to power. If it can do that to itself, it can also do it for the country.
Moreover, once the leadership election is organised, a wide range of candidates would come forward for consideration. Their talents and support would reinvigorate a political party that, for too long, has been repelling many people who believe that an association with Delia would harm their reputation.
So what is complicating the decision to have a leadership election, for many councillors? A number of arguments that are like mirrors near the edge of the abyss, which make stepping back from the edge seem like falling off and jumping into the void seem like stepping back.
One is that Delia has not been given the space to lead and be himself. The truth is no PN leader in the past 45 years has behaved with less accountability to the party and its structures of discussion. Delia has objected to demands that he explain his behaviour and meetings to the executive committee. The parliamentary group has often gone for long periods without meeting.
He has been himself and it has been a disaster. His response has been to blame others and not take responsibility as any true leader should.
Another mirror: the ‘establishment’ has been against him. Well, then Malta must have the largest establishment of any society in history, given the tens of thousands of voters who have turned against Delia.
Or else Delia’s PN opponents must be deeply influential with the electorate – but isn’t someone influential with the electorate the kind of person a party needs as leader?
A third mirror: since Delia was elected democratically by party members, voting for a leadership election would not be democratic. But since when does a vote, by democratically- elected councillors, end up being undemocratic? Especially since party members still get to have their say?
Democracy is not just about a popular vote. It’s also about checks and balances, and accountability. A political party’s vital organs – parliamentary group, executive, general council – themselves are democratically elected and represent a wide swathe of opinion. A party shows its democracy in action when these organs vote and take decisions.
The most insidious mirror of all: if people are unhappy with Delia’s leadership, they should split off and form their own political party. But who would recommend a party split when the party is not divided about anything except the leader?
In the famous story, King Solomon was confronted with two women claiming to be a baby’s mother. Solomon proposed splitting the baby in half. One woman agreed. We know what Solomon thought of her.