An unsatisfactorily explained Jersey bank account, with some kind of link to a London prostitution racket, is arrestingly novel in the annals of Nationalist Party leadership campaigns. But the attention it’s getting – fully justified in itself – is obscuring those other aspects of Adrian Delia’s campaign that help explain the circumstances of his success.
His own campaign and much commentary has focused on what’s new about Delia. The discussion has been about his personal qualities and shortcomings, whether he has “charisma” and whether he “fits” the mould of PN leaders.
The result: the important continuities between the Delia campaign and the emergent trends of the last few years are being missed.
First, while it’s easy to find contrasts between Delia and his predecessors, there is one common thread. From the first proper, modern leadership contest in 1977, every winner – Eddie Fenech Adami, Lawrence Gonzi and Simon Busuttil – wore the mantle of relative outsider to the party.
You might say Fenech Adami was a double outsider. He was a generation younger than Ċensu Tabone, the PN deputy leader, and with no ministerial experience. He was less well known, nationally, than his peers, Guido de Marco and Ugo Mifsud Bonnici. He was the choice, initially, of an even younger generation, the PN youth movement. His victory surprised many.
It’s true that Gonzi had been deputy prime minister for five years, and secretary-general for two, when he succeeded Fenech Adami in 2004. But those roles followed naturally in the wake of the PN’s 1996 electoral defeat – the real key moment in Gonzi’s political career.
He was elected to Parliament for the first time then. And his name quickly gathered momentum (again, thanks to the efforts of a younger generation of politicians), displacing the better known names of Louis Galea and Austin Gatt, who, right up to a few weeks before, were touted as the main contenders in any leadership contest to succeed Fenech Adami.
Busuttil had been in public life (though not in party politics) since the late 1990s and an outstandingly popular MEP since 2004. But it was as a kind of outsider that he made a bid for the deputy leadership role in 2012. His rival, Tonio Fenech, had the backing of almost all his cabinet colleagues. Busuttil, it’s true, was favoured by the leader, but Gonzi was following what the polls were telling him.
Second, in the 2013 leadership campaign, the importance of outsider status increased.
It seems forgotten that one of the contenders then was a complete political outsider, Ray Bugeja. Perhaps it’s because his campaign never took off. But that was also the contest where two other outsiders figured.
There was some momentum – a public demand – for Ann Fenech to run. She had no previous direct political experience but the popular demand was such that, after she ruled herself out, it was deemed fitting that she should become president of the party’s executive committee.
The other outsider was Delia, who was (by many accounts, even if missed by the press) actively exploring a leadership bid as long as Mario De Marco was the main contender. Once Busuttil entered the fray, Delia switched to endorsing De Marco.
At the time, Busuttil still had enough of an outsider status to cancel the main appeal Delia would have had to build on – using his lack of experience, as he’s done now with chutzpah, as a qualification for office.
But, for people astounded at the Delia bandwagon in 2017, and seeking to explain it solely in terms of his personal attributes, it’s important to remember that the mood for an outsider has been a long time in formation.
Delia’s success owes a lot to our current structures of power, persuasion and feeling
It’s a development (in the wrong direction, if you like) of a longstanding preference for a certain kind of political outsider in the party. And it’s the fulfilment of a zeitgeist already present in 2013, predating Donald Trump.
For, while there is a Trumpian dimension to Delia’s appeal, many people who are aghast at his success in 2017 were, just four years ago, enthusiastic supporters of another outsider, Ann Fenech, despite her completely different political, professional and cultural profile.
Finally, there is the fulfilment of another trend long displaying itself in Maltese politics: the importance of the media in the shaping of a political career.
Its salience has been noted for MEP elections. Their strong presence in their respective party’s media greatly helped David Casa, Glenn Bedingfield, Miriam Dalli and, of course, Joseph Muscat, acquire their MEP seat.
It’s also been noted for the character and composition of Muscat’s government.
The trend is this: the media arm of the party, set up to serve the party’s aims, ends up producing those who lead the party and set the aims.
Now, with Delia, we see that trend reaching the PN.
Many have scoffed at Delia’s claims to have been active in the party when he (aged 16) was really needed. But the real formative experience was another: a stint serving (while a law student) in the PN’s new radio station.
To go by his key campaigners, many of his key political friendships begin there. David Agius, Jean Pierre Debono, Pierre Portelli and Clyde Puli have also worked in the PN media organisation – most at the same time as Delia.
Identifying these continuities and wider cultural trends help us appreciate more the effect of the real discontinuities.
In previous leadership elections, the clamouring for an outsider was satisfied by electing a politician from a new generation. This time, the younger generation was not represented. It made it easier for a relative majority of councillors to plump for someone new to the party.
Next, there is the redrawing of the leadership rules in 2013. It paid attention to the zeitgeist for change by opening up the vote to ‘outsiders’, simple members, not activists. But the cultural significance of Bugeja’s candidacy – and the call for Fenech to run – was ignored.
So the rules were changed in a way that maximised the bandwagon effect, at a time when bandwagons were already noticeable, without introducing the necessary vetting mechanisms.
None of this means that just about any outsider could have stepped into the breach, in 2017, and become the favourite to become leader. (Just ask Frank Portelli.)
But it does mean that Delia’s success owes a lot to our current structures of power, persuasion and feeling. Not archaic structures but contemporary. Don’t be surprised. Idols are always fashioned in our own image.
ranierfsadni@europe.com