Lessons in political suicide

The civil unions bill which was approved by Parliament yesterday has not only heralded Malta’s entry in the 21st century as far as civil rights are concerned, but it also catapulted the Nationalist Party back into obscurity.

The miscalculating and inward looking opposition might live to regret it’s lack of courage and only adds to its woes in its arduous walk towards rehabilitating itself following last year’s calamitous electoral result. 

Showing a united front in Parliament by abstaining not only exposed Simon Busuttil’s lack of leadership but it also alienated the LGBTI community and other socially-liberal minded voters, who’s only memory from 14 April 2014 will be of the PN sitting on the fence while Labour backed the law.

The opposition committed two fundamental mistakes in deciding to abstain. Firstly, the PN played into the government’s hands by falling into the trap set up by prime minister Joseph Muscat.

Once again, Muscat has proved to be an astute strategist by introducing adoptions by same-sex couples through the civil union bill. He did so in full knowledge that the PN would be divided on the matter and find itself in a quandary.

And how did Busuttil counter the move? Instead of granting his MPs a free vote and taking a principled stand by personally voting in favour, Busuttil chose the easy way out and put party unity ahead of offering leadership. Had he done so, he would have caught the government off guard and share some of the glory.

Secondly, by deciding to abstain and creating a perception that the party is united, only serves to paper up the cracks within the party.

The PN was and remains a coalition of conservatives, liberals and middle of the road pragmatists. Had the party given MPs a free vote, government would have exposed these divisions however I would rather see an opposition where internal debate and democracy is alive than an insipid and homogenous party.

Instead the PN sat on the fence as it has done on number of issues including hunting and migration and Busuttil will go down in history books as the leader who was booed by the large crowd in St George’s Square after the historic vote.

Following the vote, the PN has more in common with the zealous Gordon-John Manche crowd than with the big happy crowd celebrating the law’s introduction in Valletta.

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind the PN’s decision. Does Busuttil believe that by aligning himself with 80% of the population who he insists are against adoption of children by same-sex couples will reap any electoral dividends?

Above all, I cannot understand Busuttil’s reasoning behind his opposition to adoptions by gay couples. He rashly concluded that “society was not ready” for such a change, however gay persons have been adopting children for years and society is already dealing with such changes.

If society is ill prepared for change, the political class can either go into hiding or face challenges and be a driving force for change. In this case Busuttil chose to hide instead of championing change and civil rights.

With the latest MaltaToday survey showing that 12 months into the new government’s term, the PN has not made any electoral inroads and no significant swing in their favour was registered, I doubt whether such a move will yield better results.

I suspect very few persons who are against adoptions by couples in a civil union would switch their vote to the PN because of the party’s abstention. On the other hand I cannot see any liberal-minded voters switching to the PN despite grievances they might have in regards to the Labour administration’s complete disregard to the environment or its neo-liberal agenda.

Moreover, recent history has shown that when the PN aligns itself with the conservative forces, as it did in the divorce referendum, it is bound to come out on the losing end. The PN today is a far cry from the party which led Malta into the EU at a time when it was in sync with young educated social liberal voters who were ready to take a leap of faith rather than maintain the status quo.

When Busuttil was elected PN leader some 11 months ago, he faced two key challenges, reorganising the party and giving it a clear and authentic identity. While it seems that the party is slowly reorganising itself after emerging from the 2013 elections in shambles, the PN still lacks a clear identity.

Abstaining on the civil unions bill did not appease anyone. Probably social conservative voters who feel strongly on civil unions and adoptions by same-sex couples are as disappointed as the social liberal voters who expected Busuttil to stand up and be counted.

Although both Lawrence Gonzi in 2011 and Busuttil in 2014 might have their own good reasons for voting against divorce and abstaining on civil unions, the PN remains a conservative and inward looking party in the country’s collective memory.