Recently, many former Nationalists have said that since the election of the new
leadership, many unpleasant elements
of the party which had existed before, but were hidden, have risen to the surface. Now that these elements are visible, it
is hard for them to imagine that any change of leadership would send them back to the party for that reason alone.
During Forza Nazzjonali, as a Partit Demokratiku candidate, I came face to face with the best of the Nationalist Party and I felt a closer bond with it, which had not been there previously
due to the party’s support of spring hunting in the referendum.
Where does that leave us today? I see many environmentalists in the Nationalist Party disagreeing with their party leadership over the string of horrible planning decisions, including supporting Mercury Tower in Paceville and the Villa Rosa development in St George’s Bay, which will be as bad as ITS.
At the same time, in the fight for good governance, one sees precious little
substance or consistency on offer. Good
governance is good because it is good for everyone, and benefits the population without fear or favour for one’s political beliefs. Just like the rule of law, where citizens receive equal treatment under the law, so too does good governance mean that people will not receive favours or get a leg-up in life based on their opinions. However, I don’t see the Nationalist Party promising fundamental reform of our institutions to depoliticise them.
Having said all this, the Labour Party promised change, and the change it seems to have delivered is to sink the country deep into scandals and a quagmire of even more cronyism. It is not an example that should be followed. Unsustainable economics and poor governance will ultimately harm everybody. The question, therefore, is if a change of leader is not enough anymore, what change does Malta really need?
All parties should be moving towards airing the skeletons in their closets
and agreeing on a common set of principles of measurable reform that will eliminate incumbent advantage and clientelism. In doing so, an equal playing field would be created, and thus the Labour Party will not have to worry about its next stint in Opposition. If we carry out the necessary reforms, the Labour Party can be confident that even if it loses power, its members will not be unfairly excluded from the economy because of revenge and clientelism.
An equal playing field means politicians succeed due to their ideas and not just because of the money they put into their campaign, whether they are in government or outside of it. Unfortunately, both the major parties are money minded and the worst elements of both parties are currently increasingly visible.
It is time for a fresh start. Today, Mexico goes to the polls and may yet deal a crushing blow to clientelism after nearly a century of almost uninterrupted one-party rule. If Mexico can do it, with far worse problems, then so can we.