Nationalist deputy leadership contender Beppe Fenech Adami is unshaken by the party’s decision to split the position. He also tells Christian Peregin the time for absolute truths is over.

You announced your intention to become PN deputy leader before the leader was chosen. Was this tactical?

The advantage I have over Claudette (Buttigieg), who I respect, is that I know this party well

No. When Lawrence Gonzi said he would not seek re-election, I was approached by a number of people to contest the leadership.

I pondered on the idea but read the times well and realised I would be of more use to the party as deputy leader.

Why do you say you read the times well? Why wouldn’t you have made a good leader?

I’m not saying that. But at this moment in time I thought I would be utilised better as deputy leader. With great humility, I would say, I could have contested for the post of leadership and probably delivered too.

Do you rule out contesting for leadership in the future?

In politics you get used to not ruling anything out. At this moment I have decided to contest the deputy leadership.

I made my intentions very clear, before the leadership contest or the call for nominations.

Did you want to make sure the elected leader could not handpick his own deputy leader?

That’s something that shouldn’t happen so if the effect of my declaration meant I would be contesting for deputy leader irrespective of who was elected leader, it was a message I wanted to convey.

The message was I was willing to serve whoever was elected of the four candidates.

Arguably the most successful PN tandem was Eddie Fenech Adami and Guido de Marco, who was a losing leadership candidate. Don’t you think it would have made sense to choose a deputy leader from the unsuccessful leadership contenders?

I had no problems with any of the leadership contenders contesting for deputy leader. In 1977 it was different because no other candidates had declared their willingness to contest.

Also, I wouldn’t say the success of the Fenech Adami and de Marco tandem boiled down to the fact that Dr de Marco contested the leadership and then became deputy leader.

It worked because they were a formidable team. They complemented each other in a most wonderful way.

Does it bother you that PN leader Simon Busuttil decided to split the role of deputy leader after he was elected?

Absolutely not. I think it was a step in the right direction.

I spoke to Simon very briefly about the matter before it was brought to the national executive and the general council but there is a huge amount of work to be done and the principle behind this move is probably: the more hands on deck, the better.

I see absolutely no problem and I think the leader was very proactive to realise that in these different and challenging times we have to take decisions differently from the way we did things six weeks ago.

Deputy leader for party affairs does not get to be deputy Prime Minister once the party is elected, so why did you opt for that role rather than deputy leader of parliamentary affairs?

It took me a while to decide if I should contest the deputy leadership but it took me a few seconds to decide which of the two deputy leadership positions I would like.

Why?

I know how our party operates. I have more experience and I feel I have more to contribute within the party than within parliamentary matters.

Were you under any pressure to withdraw your candidature to make space for Mario de Marco?

I was at no point approached by any party official or Mario de Marco to withdraw or stay on the sidelines of this contest.

Obviously, I cannot totally rule out that there was some sentiment from people who thought it might be right for me not to contest but I would say there were a larger number of people who thought I should go ahead.

Do you think splitting the deputy leader role was done to accommodate Dr de Marco, to bring him on board?

As I said, at no point in time did Mario de Marco express with me or, as far as I know, with anyone else, his intention to contest or not to contest depending on whether I would be contesting or not.

I absolutely deny that the amendment to the party statute was done in any way to accommodate me or any other candidate in this race.

As deputy leader for party affairs, what would be your responsibilities?

The name implies I will be very much concerned with party matters and I think there’s a lot of work to be done on that aspect.

The biggest challenge of the PN remains to become a party that is once again close to the people.

One of my big missions would be to bring the party close to the people at a local level.

If you get elected, the PN will suddenly have three or four heavyweights at the helm. Do you think too many cooks could spoil the broth or can you work together?

The leader is in place. The deputy leader for parliamentary affairs is practically in place.

Now there is my contest and a contest for general secretary. I see no reason why such a group could not work together.

Four people can always work together, especially in a political party which has one specific aim: to bring the party back to being the natural choice of the electorate.

What makes you better than Claudette Buttigieg? Wouldn’t it be good to have a woman in the all-male leadership team?

First of all, I beg to differ because it’s not the case that we have an all-male team.

We’ve got a woman who is the president of the general council and a woman as president of the national executive.

Obviously I respect Claudette for the choice she made and I have absolutely no problem in saying she has the potential to be very useful for the party in any post she might occupy.

Obviously if I thought I was not fit for the post, I would not have contested. I think the advantage I have over Claudette, who I respect, is that I know this party well.

You’ve been there longer.

For quite for some time. What is particular in my position is although I am Eddie Fenech Adami’s son, I climbed all the steps on my own merits. I was not catapulted into any posts.

Do you think your family name works against you or in your favour?

I would want to believe that anyone who is voting for me would do so on my own merits, my past performance and my ideas for the future.

Do you consider yourself to be similar to your father?

If I had to speak about character, my father would be much more of an introvert and I am much more of an extrovert.

But I have no problem in saying that I do not differ very much on the general political decisions taken by my father.

I will not go down the route of distancing myself from Eddie Fenech Adami.

The leadership campaign was fought mainly between two rather liberal MPs, both of whom felt the party made a mistake in opposing divorce. As someone who was staunchly against divorce, do you think you’re somewhat outdated?

First of all you said that both frontrunners for leadership post were liberals, so, by definition, I would be the perfect complement for these.

Because you’re conservative?

I refuse to accept the definition that I am a conservative if conservative means you keep something that is no longer good.

Obviously I refuse to accept the term liberal because I think we’re being too liberal in defining what it means. What do you understand by liberal?

In any other European country, it would be a contradiction in terms to say you are liberal and anti-abortion.

But don’t you think you’re too conservative?

No, no. There’s a third way. I am prepared to discuss any issue on any matter... I refuse to accept the PN is a liberal party or a conservative one. Our history proves otherwise.

You voted against divorce even after the people approved it in a referendum. Would you do the same today?

The divorce issue was the most difficult moment of the last legislature, on a personal level. I was elected on a ticket of a party that did not (have a mandate to introduce divorce)...

But these things happen. MPs are allowed to move Private Members’ Bills.

Yes, OK, of course they’re allowed and I augur that there would be many more...

The situation was that I had expressed myself in the way you described, that I was against the introduction of divorce, and I think there are big lessons to be learnt from the way that the PN approached the whole issue.

Do you think it was a mistake to take a stand against divorce?

I do not think it was a mistake for the party to take a decision but I have reservations on the decision that was finally taken.

What about yourself? Do you think you made a mistake in voting against divorce even after the referendum?

I am the only MP on record, I think, to say I would resign from my post if my vote would in any way jeopardise the result of the referendum.

Our position on divorce was stronger than the position taken by the Church

Today, do you look back and have any regrets on the position you personally took or do you say the country made a mistake?

I think our mistake was that we took such a hardline position on divorce.

We valued many values but we should have also valued the value of tolerance.

I think the PN’s problem was that our position was stronger than the position taken by the Church.

So when I look back I think the PN should have been more cautious and maybe taken a less hardline position on divorce.

You say this now, but you were one of the people who pushed for a hardline stance.

And when I say the Nationalist Party has to learn from its mistakes, I’m including myself.

One of the issues already being discussed in this legislature is gay rights. If someone decides to push forward a Bill on gay marriage, how would you deal with it?

I have no problem in acknowledging it is high time we start to regulate certain relationships, including gay relationships, because one of the values we treasure is to lessen as much as possible any harm, hardship and suffering that people may be going through capriciously because we have not legislated.

But do you have a red line?

I have no doubt that the issue of gay marriage will at some point crop up.

I still believe that when we speak of marriage we should be speaking of marriage between a man and a woman and the big challenge would be to try and have a situation where the institution of marriage as we know it today is still in place, while acknowledging there are other relationships.

We must legislate to minimise to the best extent any discrimination or hardship.

You are sometimes associated with the Austin Gatt faction in the party. Is it fair to say that you are what is left of his faction in the PN?

I can assure you that Austin Gatt is no longer in any way involved in the PN.

Do you consider that to be a good thing?

I think in politics you’ve got to realise when the time is up and you’ve got to go.

I think Austin Gatt did the right thing to pack up in politics and call it a day but I will never go down the route of rubbishing people who contributed to the party.

Austin Gatt had his good aspects of his character, did a lot of good for the party but there’s a time in politics when you just have to leave.

In the past we have seen politicians being rehabilitated into their parties against all odds, even after having burnt bridges quite seriously. What would you do if someone in the PN leadership team was to suggest rehabilitating people such as Franco Debono or Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando?

I don’t see it happening. Franco, Jeffrey and, to a lesser extent, Jesmond Mugliett, caused intentional harm.

I beg to differ with anyone who argues that what they did was a genuine attempt to help the party.

Their agenda was to harm the party and they have been thanked and rewarded for the harm they caused, tearing down the mask they wore for such a long time.

So yes, I think they crossed the red line and there is no way they can come back to the PN.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.