Rifts in the rainbow party

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was a guest on Bondiplus last Monday. His appearance has changed considerably over the course of a year. He's no longer the boyish-looking confident 'journalist' chasing the Leader of the Opposition. JPO is not as fresh-faced and his hair is streaked with grey. The Prime Minister has described him as one of the many colours which make up the Nationalist rainbow. If that is the case, JPO is one of the more muted or sombre hues.

The "rainbow" referred to by the Prime Minister was his party - the one which holds within its folds candidates and activists with divergent, and sometimes contradictory views. So we get JPO sounding off his "send-them-back" proposals about immigrants contrasting with the Prime Minister's more tempered views. A former president of the PN Executive, Frank Portelli, says that illegal immigration is our greatest problem and that all other issues are irrelevant.

On the other hand, the Prime Minister and Tonio Fenech find the possibility of the country sliding into recession and rising unemployment as being more worrying.

Portelli and JPO seem to think that it's time to make some big noises in the European and international forums - to show those foreigners who have ignored us for so long - that we are no pushovers. But Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici refuses to do a Dom Mintoff and to resort to vengeful veto votes if the other EU states don't play ball.

Despite the fact that the European Commission has referred Poland to the European Court of Justice for charging VAT on the value of the car as well as registration tax, Fenech insists that a refund of the VAT collected from Maltese car buyers is not on the cards. MEP candidate Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas doesn't agree.

She says that the government should consider refunding the money on the basis of fairness and justice, and cited the similar scenario where refunds were made to those people who had paid a licence fee for satellite dishes, when this fee was not in conformity with EU law.

Another MEP hopeful, Edward Demicoli, had - rather belatedly - called for a ban on spring hunting. This provoked the ire of Nationalist backbencher Philip Mifsud who wrote an article criticising Demicoli's stand and accusing him of compromising the party to gain some personal political mileage. Mifsud said he had obtained confirmation from the PN general secretary that the party's line on hunting had not changed and that the party would defend its pre-electoral promise to hunters to retain spring hunting.

Harking back to the St John Co-Cathedral saga, former ministers Ninu Zammit and Jesmond Mugliett and - again JPO - had expressed reservations about the proposals, considered by many to be the pet project of Richard Cachia Caruana. When the Prime Minister nominated George Abela as the next President, the rumblings of discontent from the PN backbench made the news. It was reported that MEP Simon Busuttil also had some objections to the nomination.

This is the Rainbow Party - home to the candidates of many colours and contrasting opinions. To some it might sound like the epitome of democracy - a political grouping where everybody gets to express himself, to contradict his fellow party members and leaders without fear of censure or reprisal (Though JPO did liken Nationalist candidates to Marx and Kim il Sung for dissing his stepping out of line a few times too often).

Whenever the divergent opinions of party officers are pointed out, the response is always the same: "I am happy to form part of a political group which values the freedom of expression and diversity of opinion." Which is all very well and good - it certainly wouldn't do to clap those voicing dissenting opinions in leg irons and have them shipped off to the political gulag.

However, what's the point of having a political party when its exponents hardly agree on anything? Why contest under the same banner when there is no common ground other than that of attaining or retaining power? The problem with having myriad different exponents saying that they all speak for the party is that it becomes extremely difficult to see what that party stands for. Is the PN the party for hunting or for its abolition? Is it a party which supports a President from another camp, or is it a party which prefers to appoint one of its own? More to the point, is it a party with principles and a purpose or one which only has a game plan to win the next set of elections?

Judging from the line-up of candidates for the MEP election in June, it would seem that the PN has chosen to go for the multi-sectoral or multi-niche approach, where every lobby or interest group gets to have a candidate they can identify with. So we get the anti-hunting candidate and the pro-hunting candidate, the old PN stalwart and someone who's just leapt over from the Labour camp, the young upstart and the true blue.

We know who each candidate is supposed to appeal to. What we don't know is how they will act when it's decision time and whether they will observe party discipline or remember the sectoral interests which elected them.

We have to see if we're going to get to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or if we're only going to end up with more clashing colours.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt