[ANALYSIS] PN statute: Weaker leader, stronger party?

Draft statute changes defining the Nationalist Party’s identity have dispelled fears of the party succumbing to the temptation of reinventing itself on conservative or more xenophobic lines, as suggested by statements by leader Adrian Delia himself and some of his closest allies over the past two years.

In fact, the party emerging from the reform is more akin to grandee Louis Galea’s idea of what the PN stands for than to Delia’s.   

Yet the reform process has been conditioned by a refusal to enshrine visible, striking and substantial change like ditching the anachronism of calling the party ‘Nationalist’ – a term now only used by the far right. The refusal to change the name falls short of a fresh start, which may have at least stirred a public debate.

Not so slick

Instead, the party is going half-way by introducing the term National People’s Party, already a compromise solution, in the English translation and retaining Partit Nazzjonalista in the Maltese version. The result is that in an age where parties are expected to be slick, the Party has ended up with a long-winded, chunky name – Partit Nazzjonalista – Partit Nazzjonali tal-Poplu. A simple Partit Popolari would have sounded better, in terms of both effective communication and to signal a departure from an irrelevant past held dear by a declining cohort of elderly voters.

In many ways, this weakens the reform project as it gives the impression that despite the scale of defeat and its displacement by Labour as Malta’s largest centrist party, the PN remains attached to anachronisms.

Still as a consolation for reformers, the fascist sounding ‘religio et patria’ motto which was resurrected in Adrian Delia’s inaugural speech at the granaries in 2017, is now being ditched but only to be substituted by the bland ‘at your service’, reminiscent of some retail or catering establishment’s slogan.

However, to avert the risk of the motto being misinterpreted in a society where patronage remains rife, it is also qualified by an affirmation that party members are expected to be of service to the common good.

The only sure thing is that at a discursive level, the proposed change represents continuity with the changes enacted in the 1970s rather than a leap back to the 1920s. In fact, most of the wording in the party’s mission statement has not changed much.

Reneging an archaic past

Those who hoped the party would define itself in a reactionary way to uphold traditional values threatened by Labour’s social liberal positions have reason to be disappointed – except for one significant token.

With the party’s statute committing it to “ensure safeguarding the health and quality of life of everyone from the moment of conception” it seems the PN permanently excludes pro-choice advocates from supporting it. This short-sightedness may well return to haunt the party once the abortion debate starts taking the same trajectory as the divorce campaign of 2011.

Despite this significant token, traditional values or references to national interest or identity do not even feature in the party’s statement of identity. Neither has the party embraced a pro-business identity to the detriment of its commitment for inclusion and social justice. Absent from the party’s new vision is any reference to the free market, privatizations and economic liberalism which to a certain extent characterized the party’s more recent terms in office, especially in Gonzi era.

Louis Galea

The appeal to the new Malta

The greatest limitation in the party’s new mission statement is that it fails to recognize that Labour now occupies the same national popular ideological terrain once occupied by the PN, in a way which makes it more vital for the PN to carve its own niche and reach out to socially progressive voters increasingly appalled by Labour in government but which still dismiss the PN as a mediocre alternative.

In this sense the PN’s vision is marked by a commitment for the rule of law and an upholding of pluralism and multiculturalism, which may be more in synch with these voters.

Ultimately, Labour may still have more room to outmaneuver the PN on issues like recreational cannabis, where the party finds it harder to appeal to different categories of voters, due to its own strong and vocal conservative roots.   

By moving back to the centre-ground, the PN may start presenting itself as a decent, albeit more conservative alternative to a Labour government, which despite its popularity is seriously damaged by the reverberations from the ongoing Caruana Galizia murder probe. This inevitably raises questions on whether its top exponents are involved in a criminal conspiracy, something bound to alienate voters who are offended by this breach in trust.

The other big limitations is that commitments for social justice, environmental protection and higher standards in public life, will still be weighed according to the yardstick set by PN governments in the past, of which Louis Galea himself in all his complexities remains a reminder.

Overall, the statute changes keeps PN as essentially a centrist party, which at least nominally uses a discourse characterising European centrist parties, some of which veer to the left and others to the right. In this case, the PN seems to veer more towards the left.

This comes across from the party’s commitment for the defence of the common good, multiculturalism, the fraternity of humanity, fairer wages, social justice, the environment and respect for different cultures. This was to be expected with the reform process being captained by Louis Galea, the same politician who steered the party to the centre-left in the 1970s, giving the party a strong turnaround as a viable aspirational force.

By steering away from archaic conservativism, the party can reinvent itself as a common space for a wide coalition of voters and politicians hailing from a diversity of backgrounds. In a sense, this was a rational choice, as in this way the party can attract a wide spectrum of aspirant politicians who reflect different sensibilities on moral issues but can work together on basic issues like governance. In a two-party system, parties cannot afford to exclude sizeable segments of voters.

A statute to thwart a leader?

Yet in several ways, the identity question remains unresolved and much depends on the crop of politicians who will be carrying the message across.

The other statute changes seem bent on restoring a collegial leadership for the party where the leader is part of a wider structure. In many ways, this represents the reversal of the GonziPN strategy, which contributed to the Americanisation of Maltese politics, paving the way for the presidential campaign of Muscat in 2013 and 2017.

One significant change in the statute is the introduction of a leadership committee composed of the leader, the deputy leader, the President of the General Council, the secretary general, the two party presidents and executive secretary, who are entrusted with “devising the party’s political strategy and ensuring its implementation.”

While this change ensures that the party remains bigger than the leader, it may also result in a state of paralysis if the party is thorn by factional infighting.

The reintroduction of one deputy leader, a system ditched by Simon Busuttil not to have to choose between Beppe Fenech Adami and Mario de Marco, will allow the replacement of the leader whenever he is indisposed. But this may also end up creating a strong counterweight and possibly a designated successor to Adrian Delia.

Moreover, while the leader will continue to be elected by regular members, only party councillors will elect the sole deputy leader. Apart from a stronger deputy leader, the new statute resurrects the political role of the secretary-general who will have wide ranging powers on key aspects like electoral and regional mobilisation, social media campaigning and communication strategy, something that is reminiscent of strong secretary-generals like Galea himself and Austin Gatt.

Overall the various changes to the party’s statute bring in more checks and balances on the power of the leader. However, the risk of these reforms is that of a top-heavy party, which may end up crippled if the different organs do not pull the same rope as they did when Eddie Fenech Adami was leader, Guido de Marco his deputy and Louis Galea general secretary.