Revelations are supposed to clarify matters. However, many voters in the Nationalist Party’s leadership race are more confused than ever in the wake of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s revelations about one leadership contender, Adrian Delia, and his counter accusations.

Here’s my attempt to boil down the issues to their basics for the councillors who vote in the first round on Saturday (which will see the four contenders whittled down to two, who will then have a run-off in a second round two weeks later).

Before I get there, readers should know that I am not a member of the PN, I don’t have a vote and I don’t have a favourite.

Which brings us to the five key questions councillors need to consider.

(1) What was the case made for preferring Delia before the revelations?

The case – for honest councillors and PN members seeking the best for their political party – was built on four reasons, whose respective importance depended on individual councillors.

With respect to the public, Delia is seen as someone who can build rapport quickly with many people the party needs to win back. He’s also seen as a tough fighter. Some of Delia’s campaigners genuinely think that he would give the PN an attractive, dynamic and persuasive façade in an age where image and branding are all important.

With respect to the party as an organisation, Delia’s outsider status – having no real prior involvement in the party – is seen as an advantage.

Many councillors and members believe that the party headquarters needs a clean sweep, with most officials replaced. They think only someone with no prior debts and obligations would be free from the entanglements of friendship, with the necessary detachment to do the job.

The slogan of Delia’s supporters is: “Get our party back.” For some, this means fewer ‘Sliema types’ (who need not have anything to do with Sliema, actually) influencing decisions because of their misreading of the rest of Malta. For others, it actually means that Caruana Galizia doesn’t ‘dictate the party’s agenda’ any more.

The point here isn’t whether the party really is in the thrall of hoity-toity English-speaking tone-deaf social snobs, let alone the demonstrably false idea that Caruana Galizia ever dictated anything to the party (even some Delia campaigners will agree in private that that’s false).

Some of Delia’s campaigners genuinely think that he would give the PN an attractive, dynamic and persuasive façade

The point is this: Delia’s supporters champion him because they believe he can rebuild the party’s social capital (by reconnecting it with a wider network of voters) and recover the party’s symbolic capital (by making it demonstrably a one-nation party in the face of powerful Labour spin that it’s a party led by snobs).

These points are worth remembering when we consider whether the revelations affect the very case Delia’s supporters make for him on their own terms.

(2) But doesn’t Delia also have a vision?

No, he doesn’t. He’s claimed to have one many times. But when he had the luxury of outlining it for the newspapers, in an article, all he came up with was that he was in favour of narrowing the inequality gap in every field that the government is responsible for.

Equality – in education, health, you name it – and that’s it. It could have been the slogan of any European government of the last 70 years. Come to think of it, it was the PN’s promise in 2017. Nothing about how to achieve it. Nothing about how far to go. The information revolution – and its implications for demography, power and belief, as well as wealth – need never have happened.

Delia’s actual special message in this campaign has been that he would take the PN back to basics in terms of organisation. On substance, his rhetoric (and some of his individual proposals) could have come from Lawrence Gonzi 10 years ago.

(3) What has Caruana Galizia revealed about Delia?

A mixed bag of things, in terms of impact on his campaign. My own various straw polls suggest that some revelations have actually helped him, in the sense that, overall, most people believed Caruana Galizia was going over the top in the associations and conclusions she was making and drawing.

(4) What has she revealed that is troubling many voters?

Up to the time of writing (Tuesday morning), there are two broad issues.

First, that Delia is financially exposed to the tune of €7.2 million in a property development project, which makes him politically vulnerable to various interests that might want to squeeze the leader of the Opposition, not to mention the distraction it would pose from his political work.

Second, that, as a lawyer, he held an account in his name through which a certain client’s money passed. The money came from an outfit which, the circumstantial evidence suggests, derived its income from prostitution.

The accusation clearly is that Delia helped a client cover up illicit activities, going beyond what a lawyer is permitted to do for any client.

(5) Are Delia’s answers (so far) satisfactory or do they raise questions of their own?

Delia has denied that he is financially vulnerable in practice, despite the ascertained debt. It is true that he is only exposed for the full sum of €7.2 million in a worst-case scenario.

But it is possible. And the revelations themselves will have strengthened the hand of potential buyers, who now have vital information about the pressures on the sellers.

So Delia is misleading when he suggests that, other things being equal, the properties he’s involved in should be sold off easily. The other things are no longer equal.

As for the accusation of collusion in illicit activities, Delia has strenuously denied this, while also denying his client was ever knowingly involved in such activities.

One problem in sorting out the back and forth has been, I’m afraid, the press.

It should be easy to verify if a lawyer’s bank account, opened in his personal name, is a regular feature of services offered to clients, and how a judge would reckon responsibility for that account. Likewise, it should be easy to verify whether the London property in question enjoys a reputation for prostitution, and for how long it’s done so (that is, whether it was bought when that reputation was already in place, and whether that repute ever went away).

Beyond the press, however, Delia’s answers have raised additional questions. Parts of his answers are so misleading, that you can’t help wondering if it’s intentional.

For example, he says he never received a certain fax but also says he’d need to see it to check if it’s authentic. But, if he never received it, it can’t possibly be authentic. If it were, the senders would have got in touch with him by other means (if only by suing him).

Here Delia comes across as hedging his bets. Other times he comes across as Konrad Mizzi, as when he claims his signature is not to be found on a document that was addressed to him (obviously not) or when he promises an audit that cannot possibly settle the issue in question.

Here is, therefore, what the councillors need to decide on Saturday as they weigh whether the revelations affect the original case for Delia.

First, do his financial and professional entanglements and obligations cancel out his lack of ‘entanglements’ and obligations in the party itself?

Second, in fighting back against Caruana Galizia, he’s given credibility to Labour spin about her to get through the week. Does that say anything about his capacity for tough strategic fights?

Finally, in the light of everything, if Adrian Delia is the new party leader on September 16, will they feel, in their gut, that they have a leader who fits in with his predecessors and all that the PN’s heritage symbolises for them?

ranierfsadni@europe.com