The Labour Party is very focused in its efforts to depict the Nationalist Party as a hopelessly disunited entity, subject to unending internal feuds. No doubt this perception of the PN is cherished by a labour audience.

Unfortunately this view has also gained ground with the public and a good number of PN adherents. A political force that lacks a basic level of cohesion definitely loses strength in the struggle to overcome an opponent. It is here pertinent to ask, how valid and correct is this assessment of the PN?

To sort out this query, one needs to examine the real meaning that should be attributed to the concept of a healthy unity. Labour endorses a particular concept of unity. Invariably, to Labour, unity implies that no internal dissenting voice should be raised on unpleasant occurrences. The party is reeling under a tsunami of corruption and criminality and yet not one serious and committed voice is raised in protest.

Meanwhile, to the top select few in huge volumes, to the very numerous lower faithful in less quantities, illicit substantial benefits freely flow. The Labour-leaning media remains silent and a threatening atmosphere apparently prevails within the party so that the boat is not rocked.

On occasions, this erroneous understanding of unity is further developed, by an upgrade option, to unanimity; that is a 100 per cent agreement between everybody on everything. In pushing for and nurturing unanimity, extra pressure is applied to leave no space for dissenters. On a nod by leader Joseph Muscat, a regiment of party delegates unanimously confirm, as party deputy, a dubious candidate, Konrad Mizzi.

Joseph Muscat was never shown the door, he sorted out his succession and voluntarily faded out into a glorious sunset

Unanimously, the delegates blindly accept his instant, hardly-explained resignation. The Chinese and North Korean communist parties are masters of unanimity politics. Dom Mintoff was a fan of these parties that still operate according to a Stalinist governance model with great halls packed with delegates, orchestrated shows of hands and rhythmic applause. No, thank you very much, the PN survives and operates without such concepts as guiding principles.

Conceded, at the moment the PN is not the best example of an optimally united entity, but what appears to be chaotic discord is really a super convincing effort to face and tackle a fundamental leadership problem. There is no future for a party languishing under a leader, (elected by 28 per cent of eligible party members), who refuses to acknowledge incontrovertible evidence of his inadequacy, a leader who has not delivered, is not delivering and realistically cannot deliver.

There was a time when the level of disunity within the PN gave rise to the fear of a party split. The issue of the contested leadership was proving to be intractable, but in the end a solution, based on rules, was found. It is hoped that the eventual identification of a more effective leader, endorsed by a clear majority, will lead to a level of unity that will make the party very electable.

Now should such a competent leader enjoy unanimous support? Ideally no, no such thing, this is where we draw a line. Unanimity is welcome, and probably needed, in respect of basic beliefs and fundamental principles, otherwise a loose level of unity, subject to self-scrutiny and critical opinion, is what should rule.

Therese Commodini Cachia was not a divisive figure when she intervened to bring about a controlled, regulated leadership challenge, a challenge that it is hoped will yield a solution to the grave leadership impasse. By her actions, she saved the convoluted but healthy unity of the PN. It is now up to the pary members to validate this lifeline she threw at them.

Faced with a plague of massive widespread corruption, the Labour Party is incapable of redeemably reacting. It cannot, as it is conditioned by a blind, fear- based, unquestioning unity that does not allow needed sensible criticism. Instead, the party responds with a muted disciplined ‘unanimity’.

No serious challenge, or condemnation, is raised to the scandalous behaviour of prominent party officials. Joseph Muscat remains confirmed in his dubious governance record, he was never shown the door, he took his time, sorted out his succession and voluntarily faded out into a glorious sunset.

So there is evidence to show that the Nationalist Party is a healthy ‘unity’ party while the Labour Party shows itself to be a dictatorial ‘unanimity’ party. A unity that challenges and questions is a bamboo that sways in the wind, adapts and survives. A prevalently unanimity behaviour is a rigid branch that breaks.