As the Nationalist Party’s councillors make up their mind about their vote in Saturday’s first round of the leadership election, every informal report I’ve had suggests a widespread sense of uncertainty. It afflicts not just those who have not yet made up their minds. Even many of those who are decided find themselves in two minds.
Who is the candidate who most fits the PN tradition while being the most connected to the contemporary world?
It’s partly to do with having a good choice. But the word that’s often bandied around, even more than “uncertainty”, is “confusion”. I would characterise it differently.
My hunch is this. Had the election been lost by 12,000 votes (the ballpark of a massive defeat up to 2008), the councillors would be far less racked with doubt. They would have confidence in their instincts, honed by years of political activism and insider information.
The loss by 37,000 votes, however, has been a massive shock. It upended conventional expectations. It made the world ‘out there’ seem illegible. The uncertainty afflicting the councillors might express itself as lack of sufficient confidence in any of the available candidates. In fact, however, it may be better explained as the result of many councillors’ loss of self-confidence. They are no longer sure of their judgement.
If they got it so wrong in March, can they trust their instincts in May? The vote, therefore, feels like a leap in the dark.
But actually it shouldn’t. One shouldn’t rationalise March’s result away. One should try and see, as much as possible, things as they are. That also means, however, that one should not let the shocking result blind one to three basic facts.
First, the PN has been here before. It has suffered defeats that, in one sense or another, were massive. In 1947, Labour won with 60 per cent of the vote. In a 40-seat Parliament with five parties represented, it had 17 seats more than the PN. Moreover, the PN seemed outdated, an Italianate party in a post-World War II scenario.
Yet, within three years it was back. Greatly helped, of course, by the Labour split. But it had also become relevant again, without jettisoning its basic principles.
Having principles doesn’t mean sticking to the same answers. It means subjecting changing circumstances to the same questions of concern. Those questions – ensuring dignity first for every person and an institutional framework of inclusivity – remain relevant today.
Second, unlike any other European political party losing elections around now, the PN has emerged from this election with its reputation largely intact on the economy, education and health.
Its reading of Malta on these issues was reliable. It was kicked out by a political party that promised to adopt this reading. The PN lost massively on, broadly speaking, consumer rights.
And there was something else. It was not the world so much that had changed. But the PN had become, in many ways, unrecognisable. Dirty linen in public. Laissez-faire on social and ethical issues, when it had previously been a party that set up regulatory frameworks, principled but open-minded, on such issues.
In other words, much of what the councillors know about Malta – or thought they knew until racked with doubt – still holds. Their instincts have not been rendered defunct.
On the contrary, their job is to find not the person who can change the PN into something it isn’t but the person who can help it rediscover itself.
Third, in the process of scanning the candidates, the natural question to ask is also the wrong question. It is a mistake to ask: Who does the public most identify with?
It’s the wrong question because, right now, in 2013, the public will identify with the person who seems like the best general for the battle that has just been lost. Macho toughness, for example, might arguably have been warranted in the past legislature. But dissenting MPs in Opposition can be dealt with easily
The right question actually is the reverse: which candidate is best able to identify with the public (and its various segments)? That is the question that will identify the leader who will anticipate and answer the problems that will be niggling the electorate in two or three years.
These will be questions to do with the fact that the boundaries of Maltese society reach beyond the country itself, into Europe. That it’s going to be difficult for any government to address rising income inequality and job protection.
In the long term, it’s the leader’s ability to show he listens and hears, that he understands the point of view even when he disagrees, that will attract voters’ respect.
I’d say that the councillors, therefore, do not need to second-guess their instincts. They need to ask themselves: who is the candidate who most fits the PN tradition while being the most connected to the contemporary world? It shouldn’t be a leap in the dark.
ranierfsadni@europe.com