Frank Psaila (June 8) attempted to make an analysis of the divorce referendum aftermath and the Nationalist Party’s situation in the immediate future. I agree with several points he raises, especially when he states that “the party needs to forcefully put forward its social liberal agenda and urgently take up some very important issues that need to be addressed, namely IVF legislation and cohabitation laws”.
Indeed, in the past decades, the PN inspired change and hope in the future of us the new generation. At the age of 18, I voted in favour of the accession of Malta to the European Union because I firmly believed that I should have equal rights like our fellow European citizens. The people wanted to secure and guarantee once and for all certain fundamental, inalienable rights. The rights I am referring to are those which the Socialist governments in the 1970s and 1980s degraded through a regime of terror and violence.
Surely politicians like Eddie Fenech Adami, Guido de Marco, Louis Galea, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici and Ċensu Tabone made a drastic change in the mentality of the party bringing about the necessary reforms at the time.
In government, the PN made a peaceful revolution in terms of freedom and democracy. Thanks to these reforms, the opponents of the PN government can now express themselves without any fear of aggression.
As stated by Dr Psaila, the PN transformed the economy and the educational system, reforms that are no mean feat for our tiny island nation considering that we have no natural resources.
What’s next now? The PN has been in power for almost 23 years out of the last 25. Certainly the divorce issue left the party somehow damaged. The presentation of the divorce motion by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando left Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi somewhat disoriented.
To start with, this was the first time, at least to my knowledge, that in the short political history of independent Malta a member of Parliament on the government side, without the knowledge of his leader, presented a Private Member’s Bill. Faced with this situation Dr Gonzi should have consulted the party’s general council, which, according to the party’s statute, is its highest organ. The party’s executive committee was not, in my opinion, the competent body to deal with this issue, binding the party with a No stand against divorce in the referendum. Surely, this was a wrong tactical approach from the PN side.
The liberal people in the PN consequently voted in favour of divorce, which, in certain instances, affects their personal life without caring about Joseph Muscat’s stand on this particular issue.
Correctly so, the stand against divorce by the party left many PN voters disappointed and disillusioned. The time is now ripe for the PN to open up to new people and renew itself before it is too late.
The election is less than two years away and the people want change, the introduction of new civil liberties among other things, as rightly stated by Dr Psaila.
The PN must do some soul searching before the next election and not after because it will be too late once the result is out.
There are people who want the opportunity to be part of and inspire the necessary changes the country will need to undergo in the next years to overcome the difficulties, both economic and social.
I still firmly believe the PN is the only party that has the right vision and qualities to govern our country. I call on the party’s administration to go back to its roots and widen the involvement of party members and activists in the decision- and policy-making process. I am convinced more people can contribute to the country’s well-being.
On a final note, I cannot but agree with a great western philosopher who stated: “He is a man of courage who does not run away but remains at his post and fights against the enemy.”