Over the past few years, I have stayed away from partisan politics, bar for an occasional media contribution here and there and pitching in with some ideas on economic and fiscal policy.
In my time in politics, and in the years after, I have learnt that being on the professional and on the political front line at the same time is somewhat incompatible.
I am an auditor in professional practice and being a Politically Exposed Person at the same time made no sense to my mind. Quite frankly, the way partisan politics have at times degenerated is quite sad but that’s another story.
Seeing the picture from a distance allows you to see things from a wider perspective. So, lately, I have been trying to put together my sense of critical thinking.
On the back of another landslide election result, in line with the trend over the last 13 years, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Nationalist Party has been lacking a tangible distinctive raison d’etre.
After having successfully led the country to EU membership and the adoption of the euro, the main reason the electorate voted Nationalist the last time around was choosing Lawrence Gonzi’s ‘safe pair of hands’ against Alfred Sant’s somewhat weak and unsuccessful legacy.
Once in opposition, the Nationalist Party fought ad hoc battles, with the main one being against corruption, which, albeit essential, carries an obvious element of unpopularity.
Make no mistake, good governance must be the backbone of any aspiring party in any modern democracy but it should be one of the means to an end and not the end in itself. The challenge is how to couple that with policies that reflect a larger vision, which, in turn, translates into bread and butter issues that intrigue the electorate and make the party a more relevant player in a democracy.
The party came out with its plan for new economic sectors too late in the day- Antoine Borg
From a distance, I understood that the Nationalist Party tried to move on from dedicating all its energy solely to good governance. So, if the political message contained a healthier mix of issues, what went wrong? Why has the party failed to capitalise on the apathy of the public, which traditionally would be expected to work against the incumbent government but, on the contrary, worked to the detriment of the party in opposition?
Undoubtedly, the PN electoral manifesto contained good proposals, which, if communicated well, would have been welcomed by voters. The party came out with its plan for new economic sectors, which I believe was launched too late in the day. If this initiative was meant to be the principal platform of the party’s economic policy, it should have been discussed much earlier.
This economic policy was launched in a disjointed manner, giving rise to different interpretations of the economic vision the party was trying to portray. In order to be really understood and appreciated by voters, fiscal and economic policies depend on a clear sense of direction.
In my view, the Nationalist Party is failing to address its existential crisis. It is in need of an overriding vision that should tie together all its initiatives and proposals, not just in an electoral campaign but throughout a legislature. Such a vision should be aimed at ensuring a better standard of living for people, stability and prosperity for businesses and a hopeful future for all.
That vision would define the party – the reason for its existence – and would be the basis of its proposals in opposition and its policies in government.
This raison d’etre would reach its climax in a political manifesto, not the other way round. Most importantly, the raison d’etre, which would be built on the party’s long-standing values, must define the party and what it stands for.
Antoine Borg, accountant and former PN MP