The Nationalist Party does not seem to have learnt much from the internal turmoil it had to deal with in the last months of its last legislature. Its leader at the time increasingly appeared weak and the number of disgruntled supporters kept growing, leading the PN to suffer a huge electoral defeat.
The matter of choice of candidates soon came to the fore. That, it seems, remains a dilemma to political parties.
We have already seen how Prime Minister Joseph Muscat opted to retain erring politicians, including those who have caused serious embarrassment to the government on the international plane. But even the party in Opposition suffers from the same syndrome.
Salvu Mallia, often described as the PN’s “star candidate”, lashed out at the Labour Party and hurled abuse at its supporters using colourful and even foul language. As expected, his outburst raised eyebrows within the PN, including among high-ranking officials.
Yet, the PN, and, particularly, its leader, Simon Busuttil, appear too reluctant to take a stand, giving rise to concerns from within of a “weak” leadership.
Is it possible Dr Busuttil is happy with the situation? Does he not realise the longer he decides to do something about it the more the damage he would be causing to himself and to his party? Is he resigned to share the same fate as his predecessor who appeared too weak to tackle a vociferous MP?
We cannot say because he prefers to remain mum. His silence speaks volumes; more so his inaction. There is more that Dr Busuttil and the PN must deal with if they are to be believed they truly want good governance and clean politics.
The reports by the National Audit Office on the government purchase of three properties in Valletta in 2011 and the transfer of the site of the former Löwenbräu brewery at Qormi should not be taken lightly by the Opposition party as they raise serious shortcomings under the former Nationalist administration.
The PN welcomed the reports saying they confirmed there was no political interference in the deals. Well, yes and no.
In the case of the Valletta properties, the Auditor General noted “interventions by the Prime Minister and the [Parliamentary Secretary] Revenues and Land made later in the process, despite the concerns raised by the Permanent Secretary [Ministry of Finance, the Economy and Investment] as to whether the government was paying a fair price...”
More damning comments were reser-ved by the Auditor General in the second case: “The NAO is of the opinion that failure in terms of good governance, to varying degrees, is a recurring theme that emerged throughout its review of this matter...”
“This latter aspect [the cancellation of conditions burdening the land in Qormi] is of concern to the NAO as evidence reviewed indicated that the government was aware of, and possibly facilitated, this transaction...”
“The NAO did not find direct evidence of political pressure exerted in the processes reviewed. However, the manner by which the [Government Property Department] concluded the 2009 contract in a matter of days was deemed highly suspect by this Office...”
“Although the Minister [for Fair Competition, Small Business and Consumers] contended that the decision to value the land as at 1990 was not within the remit of the politician, this Office maintains that failure to question the grossly misrepresentative value of the land was a shortcoming in terms of ministerial oversight.”
The buck must stop somewhere and somebody must carry the can.