The Nationalist Party is at a crossroads. This can be either a moment of opportunity or a moment of complete implosion. The writing has been on the wall for some time now, and it is quite worrying that there was evidently no concerted effort to bring the party out of the echo chamber and into the realm of the living (and the dead).
It is said hindsight is always 20/20 - but this is not about hindsight. Though many feel some form of anger, sadness, a sense of loss and disarray, the current situation provides the ideal conditions for the PN to reinvigorate itself and redefine the political platform it stands on. Those who mean the PN well should look at the current situation as an opportunity.
So where does the party go from here? First things first – picking the right people for the leadership as well as the executive branches should not be done hastily. The party needs to first define what the direction is going to be from here on, and then look into the right people fit for that direction.
There will be differing opinions, but there should be a unified motivation. Speaking about motivation, political mercenaries should be swept aside.
The party has to realise that the chances of being elected in five years’ time are slim. The focus should not be on winning for the sake of winning, but rather to set a strong, fresh, likeable foundation for the next couple of decades.
The PN needs to adjust the political spectrum it sees itself occupying. The roots of the party are conservative. But there are many schools of thought that can validly fall under this umbrella. In this day and age, it is important to let go of the idea that a party is an extension of archaic religious principles. It is good to be ethical and it is good to be clean.
It is not good to be Religio et Patria. Conservatism should limit itself to conserving what is right, and changing what is wrong – coincidentally the catchphrase used by PN in the last election. You can be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal – and that is the kind of modern conservative party the PN should strive to become.
The PN should offer the possibility of bringing in technocrats for a future election – scientists, engineers, economists and grassroots social activists
Considering the constitutional and governmental set-up Malta has built and achieved over the years, it should not be foregone at all to look at government as a tool to enact a form of left-leaning libertarianism.
The country (through both parties) has taken a centrist approach to politics, where almost everything is legislated and/or regulated to some extent. Looking forward, it is hard to imagine the repeal of such a structure to favour more laissez-faire options. This is why it is crucial for the future PN crop to occupy a wider spectrum than it currently occupies.
There are names and phrases within the PN, which taken together or separately, should simply be let go.
Speaking in less ideological terms, the party needs to consider the set-up of appropriate think tanks, with the participation of various experts in the field. Indeed, the party should offer the possibility of bringing in technocrats for a future election – scientists, engineers, economists and grassroots social activists.
There are many valid people out there, and some, one might say, have been waiting for an opportunity to contribute, and may have been left aside for far too long. It is time for the focus to be on quality, not quantity.
Politics is about openness, but this should not be confused with entitlement. The various pillars of our society such as health, economy, education, environment, investment and civil liberties require careful treatment, analysis and planning by a strong and skilled strategy team.
Adding to this, a shadow cabinet should no longer focus just on criticism of the party in government. It should also serve as a reference point for government, and be the team responsible for coming up with an electoral programme focusing on sound money, economic freedom, prosperity, engagement in class struggle and protection of individual rights from intended or unintended statist policies.
One of the best, and yet underutilised achievements of the PN were local councils. I was happy to hear the suggestion by AD, which proposed the idea of a local referendum for development projects within a particular region. While this idea merits its own analysis, the focus here is that it underlines the fact the local councils can be a source of inspiration for a new PN platform.
While there is an aspect to government centralisation on many issues which should not be ignored, it is important to try and decentralise the consultation process for many aspects of a new democracy – not just development.
For instance, it is important to realise that many people, though interested in academic discussions, are not that much into politics to the point that they want to be exposed publicly within one party of another. This is where local councils can come in – they allow a comfortable setting where politicians (who are after all elected in districts) can interact with different people from different localities and strata.
A political mandate should not take the form of a two-month door-knocking consultation process followed by five years of absolute governmental power, while citizens fall into a deep slumber and wait for the proverbial September to end.
The consultation process, the discourse, and the involvement of citizens should be active, continuous and free from pontification. A new PN liberal democratic platform should boost this process further.
Lastly, a PN in opposition, while serving as a check and balance for government performance and behaviour should not always be an opposition in an absolute way. The term is unfortunate. A refreshed party should remodel the opposition as a source of help, a second opinion, and a friend – friends sometimes tell us what we need to hear, even if we do not like it.
Most of all, it is time for the party to listen.
Andrea de Marco is a lecturer at the Institute of Space Sciences and Astronomy, University of Malta.