Nationalist Party councillors will cast their vote today to decide whether Adrian Delia should continue leading until the next general election. It is meant to resolve the impasse between the pro- and anti-Delia camps, which are now akin to the Brexit and Remain movements in the UK – in other words, almost nigh on impossible to reconcile. 

What should be the councillors’ considerations when they cast their vote? The very short answer is that they must put country before party, and that would entail putting party before prejudice. 

For decades, the PN has often been on the right side of history. But after more than six years on the opposition benches, it is close to imploding – and with no third party making inroads, this is a major threat to our democracy.

The country needs a rank of MPs on its opposition benches in Parliament united on principles, dedicated to the same vision and driven to fight for the same values. Their primary mission is to represent the people who elected them based not just on their constituents’ narrow interests, but on policies that ultimately characterise the country’s successes. 

That way, they can eventually be considered viable as a government in waiting. Clearly, the present PN in opposition stands far from this ideal. 

In a bid towards getting closer to this vision, Louis Galea has been appointed to oversee deep reforms to a party that needs to drastically change if it is to become electable. Change, therefore, is what this vote is all about.

For starters, the party needs to move away from the (sometimes) ultra-conservative right-wing values it has embraced since Delia took over and should shift towards a social liberal left, a political void accentuated by the Labour government’s policy of selling every piece of Malta to the highest bidder.

The fundamental question councillors need to be asking themselves is whether Delia has the character, political savviess, strategic thinking and personal vocation to be entrusted with revamping the party. Does he really have the skills and statesmanship to reach out to his well-meaning critics and shun the worrying individuals who are taking root in the party?

Councillors need to analyse whether, by retaining the status quo, they are merely limping on to another political drubbing in 2022.

In casting their vote, some would say the worrying questions about Delia’s financial dealings matter little to an electorate that keeps voting for a Labour government rife with corruption claims. Some of his critics might still vote for Delia, arguing that there is no reason to elect a promising new leader now simply to send him or her into the jaws of defeat in the next general election. Such arguments are flawed and defeatist.

Other council members will support the leader arguing he was democratically elected and has sometimes been unfairly targeted by MPs and officials meant to be fighting the same battles. It is not easy when people who are meant to be on your side are constantly chipping away at your credibility. 

Clearly, a vote against Delia would lead to a period of uncertainty and chaos in the party. But councillors need to ask whether the party realistically stands a chance of rising from the ashes with a leader who has already faced two electoral batterings, serious claims on his personal and financial reputation and who has sometimes focused on insignificant social and political issues rather than fulfilling his role as an effective watchdog to the government and, hence, an alternative to it.