The scene outside Parliament on Monday night where Nationalist MPs were loudly jeered by hundreds after abstaining in the civil unions Bill vote was not enjoyed by anyone who experienced it.
Yes, some politically-motivated people were there on purpose, but there were many others who did not have politics on their mind. The PN could well have alienated the latter for some time to come.
Though the criticism aimed at Joseph Muscat for grouping gay adoptions with the civil unions Bill is justifiable – the two issues are entirely separate, particularly as one involves a voiceless child – there is no denying that the Prime Minister delivered a smart political blow to his opponents.
In his comments to Times of Malta last Thursday, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil indicated that his MPs were divided on the Bill. He clearly saw the abstention as the glue to hold the different opinions together.
While Times of Malta has already stated that we believe the party should have taken a stand one way or the other rather than opting for a fudge which really and truly pleased nobody – as well as thinking through much better than it did how it was going to present its position – where has this vote left Dr Busuttil, who is heading a party that suffered an electoral haemorrhage a year ago and with another electoral test in a month’s time? Clearly, the biggest headache for the PN leader, seen by many as a liberal, is dealing with the large number of conservative Nationalist MPs on the Opposition benches.
While he can cite statistics which show the majority of Maltese are against gay adoptions, he must also be doing everything he can to show liberals that they have a place in the Nationalist Party, which, after all, placed Malta at the very heart of European ideals and culture.
After last Monday’s vote, Prof. Joe Friggieri said: “You can’t keep out the winds of change once you’ve thrown open all the doors and windows.” There is much truth in this statement and, although there must always be red lines for a party, if the PN does not wish to spend many years in Opposition it must recognise that the world is a changing place.
The party’s MPs must also come to terms with living with each other. While they are incapable of doing this, they will not be able to highlight the government’s failure on issues like meritocracy and the environment.
They also handed Dr Muscat the opportunity to seem like a principled leader when he made the statement that he was proud to be among the “20 per cent”, when in effect he very well knows that it is that 20 per cent that helped him win the election – while he has taken populist stands on other issues such as migration, land planning, local enforcement and hunting.
Though what happened last week may damage the PN in the upcoming European Parliament elections, a silver lining could be that we are only 12 months into a five-year legislature. This might give them enough time to make up some lost ground.
But this can only happen if people know what the Nationalist Party of the 21st century represents, and if Dr Busuttil manages to persuade his colleagues quickly that they must have an effective strategy to deal with conservatives and liberals.
A sensible stand on the law to decriminalise drugs for first-time offenders, which we believe should go further than mooted so far, would be a good place to start. The spring hunting referendum will be another, especially when we are faced with a government that goes out of its way to pander to hunters’ wishes at the expense of everyone else.
These challenges, and more, await Dr Busuttil. But above all he must impose himself on the party, as his predecessors had done. This may require some tough decisions, but ultimately that is what leaders are there for.