The report about the PN’s electoral defeat – or a mini version of it – has been published.  The executive summary lists several reasons which contributed to the party’s downfall – none of which are really news to us. Flick through any local newspaper published during the last legislature, surf through the comments made online during the same period, and you’re likely to come across the same reasons as those included in the report – perhaps with the liberal sprinkling of exclamation marks.

I still think that had some other decisions been taken the PN would not have been so completely washed-out

You know – the cliques, the arrogance, the public transport reform fiasco, the ministerial pay rise, the absolutely lacklustre PN campaign, Austin Gatt, Austin Gatt, Austin Gatt... there isn’t anything we haven’t heard before.

Now unless Lawrence Gonzi was living in a bubble, he couldn’t have avoided being hit with any of this in the face. Why – a good part of it was sitting down next to him in Parliament for most of the time.

So why did he ignore the clamour for something – anything – to change? Why did he mulishly persist in ignoring public opinion on a number of issues which may have affected the final outcome of the election?

Granted – he couldn’t rectify all his administration’s faults. The money men who had previously tided over the PN were now best friends with Labour and there was no way the PN could keep up with the blingy, colourful Labour campaign.

But still, Gonzi could have taken some measures which would have stemmed the tide and stopped the haemorrhage of votes from the party. For starters – he could have accepted Gatt’s offer to resign in the wake of the disastrous Arriva introduction. That would have shown the public that underperforming ministers are dispensable no matter how loudly they bray.

In the same way, Gonzi could have backed down about the honoraria saga instead of insisting on brazening it out and laying his Cabinet open to charges of being avaricious overlords swilling deep from the public trough. We’re not talking about points of principle here – but simply a timely response to justified criticism (In the long run, the honoraria decision was revised – but it was too late. The damage had already been done).

I suppose people will say it’s easy to comment with the benefit of hindsight, and that the one overwhelming reason for Labour’s triumph was that people just felt the need for change. But I still think that had some other decisions been taken, the PN would not have been so completely washed-out, and the party could have undergone a gentler renewal process instead of having to practically rebuild itself from the post-electoral wreckage.

Ultimately, it all boils down to one attribute which is essential for politicians to have – the ability to accept – and act on - criticism.

Judging from anecdotal evidence and the attitude of the former Prime Minister and fellow Cabinet members, there seems to have been a siege mentality at Castille. Anybody who criticised government actions was assumed to be an enemy of state, in the pay of Joseph Muscat, ungrateful or just plain stupid.

Ulterior motives were attributed to those who didn’t agree wholeheartedly with the direction in which the party was being lead.

Even loyal old-timers like Jean Pierre Debono were ignored when they dared express their concern. With that kind of atmosphere prevailing, it’s no wonder Nationalist supporters were looking around for the Exit sign and abandoning the party in droves.

It’s a bit like volunteering to join a committee or other for fund-raising for some charitable cause. You turn up at meetings with all good intentions, dutifully bake trayfuls of muffins for the Bring and Buy Sale, and generally do your bit. Then the bossy boots who’s in charge and who’s the officially recognised ‘face’ of the outfit, starts ordering you about, raiding the donations kitty and insisting you bake rockcakes instead. There comes a point – after your hundredth proposal gets turned down – when you realise you no longer believe in the cause, or that being a member of that particular entity is not the only way to work for the cause.

You look around you and realise you don’t like your fellow club members and that you could be doing something much more useful with your time. You leave the fetid atmosphere, the pettiness and the futility behind you, up sticks and leave.

On a grander level, this is what happened to the Nationalist Party. And history is bound to repeat itself – both within the Nationalist Party and the still-exuberant Labour Party – if criticism is not tolerated.

As Winston Churchill once wrote: “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt