[ANALYSIS] Hardline Gonzi risks upsetting Grech’s apple cart

The Nationalist Party has been cagey about withdrawing the cannabis bill that has legalised recreational cannabis and home-growing. A commitment would be a strategic mishap working to Labour’s electoral benefit. It may well suit the party to put the issue to rest, maybe promising a review of the new law after five years to assess its impact.

But the temptation to rally behind the anti-cannabis banner is great as a way of short-circuiting the party’s own identity problem, with a battlecry that resonates with respectable NGOs like Caritas and a segment of M.O.R. voters who settled for decriminalisation but consider cannabis clubs a step too far. Repealing a law is after all the logical consequence for today’s negative vote in parliament. But in that case the PN will have to come with a proposal which retains some form of sanction against users who will be forced back to buy cannabis from the illegal market.

Ironically it was Grech who first recognised that the cannabis law “should first and foremost have tackled how cannabis can be purchased.” Ironically at that stage, while Labour seemed bent on limiting the new law to decriminalisation, it was Grech who warned “the relaxation of laws would simply strengthen the black market unless a proposal was made that addressed how smokers can purchase the plant”. And this is exactly what the government has done and what the PN is now opposing.

A broken church

The problem for the PN is that instead of providing it with a unifying battlecry for the party’s broad church, such a stance would further alienate the party’s liberal wing, crippling any recovery among presently disillusioned voters who shun Labour’s corruption and Lawrence Gonzi’s conservatism in equal measure.

In fact the major problem with Gonzi’s intervention in the debate is that it resurrects memories of the party’s recent opposition to divorce, and its enforcement of outdated censorship laws while in office. The party can only ignore these voters’ aversion to its repressive streak, to its own peril.

Ironically on the day when the party should be riding high on voters’ outrage at Robert Abela’s reluctance to immediately sack Justyne Caruana following a damning report by the Standards Commissioner, the party finds itself facing calls by a former leader to go overboard in opposing a law which was partly endorsed by its own leader in October.

Grech’s inconsistency

The PN’s conundrum is exacerbated by clear indications that its leader Bernard Grech is not opposed to the law and that the party’s parliamentary group overruled him. Grech came close to endorsing the law when back in October he took credit for the inclusion of cannabis clubs in the law, by saying: “the government amended its proposal in line with what I said, through the introduction of associations by membership” ; and that he looked forward to the publication of the actual Bill “so that we can have a serious discussion about this in Parliament and submit the amendments necessary.”

Instead, following a parliamentary group meeting last month, the party decided to oppose the new law in principle while failing to submit legal amendments in committee to address the concerns raised by the NGOs.

Labour gains, PN losses

The major problem for the PN is that while apprehension on the new law is unlikely to result in a loss of votes for Labour, opposition to the new law is a likely vote-loser for the PN. Those opposed to cannabis use will not be losing anything, and their concerns have been partly addressed by retaining the ban on smoking weed in public.

But those who use cannabis recreationally will no longer live in fear of being arrested and would no longer have to have recourse to the black market to buy their stuff.

The PN’s central argument against the law – that it would “normalise drug use” – is itself disproved by provisions of the new law against cannabis smoking in public, restricting the consumption of cannabis to private homes. This makes it easier for Labour to depict the PN’s opposition to the law, as support for police intrusion in people’s homes.

And while apprehension on the new law exists among Labour’s own dormant, socially conservative wing, as demonstrated by the stance taken by President emeritus Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, who signed an appeal by NGOs calling for amendments for the new law, it is unlikely that this will result in any significant amount of Labour voters shifting to the PN.

A segment of Labour voters thinks the party has gone too far in its liberal direction, but Labour’s media has found it easy to deflect criticism on the bill itself, by focusing on the contradictions of the Opposition leader.

And PN voters who either use cannabis recreationally or who have family members who do so may actually change their vote, if the PN turns cannabis repeal into its next rallying cry.

A question of fairness

Electoral calculations apart, the PN is ignoring the unfairness of the present situation, which sees people arrested and held for questioning despite the ‘decriminalisation’ law approved in 2015. This is because the amount decriminalised in the half-baked law was a meagre 3.5 grams, and also because police could still question users about the source of their provision.

Once again the PN is reneging on its liberal credentials and finds itself defending a repressive legal regime. Back in February, in reaction to the Valentine Day’s arrest of a couple in a hotel room for possessing a small amount of cannabis, MEP Roberta Metsola asked” “Are we really still charging teenagers for smoking a joint in a hotel room?”, adding, “If only we went after the corrupt with the same fervour, our country might just move forward.”

Yet it is now Metsola’s party which is insisting on keeping the law, which led to this arrest in the first place.

Ultimately by indirectly suggesting that his party should commit to reverse the newly approved cannabis law, Lawrence Gonzi not only makes it harder for Bernard Grech to defuse the cannabis issue before it blows in the party’s face in the next election, but has resurrected memories of his time in government, characterised by his opposition to divorce and imposition of censorship laws, which alienated a generation of voters who grew up associating the PN with Gonzi’s intransigent stance on moral issues.

Gonzi himself has not directly called on the PN to commit itself for withdrawing the bill. It may well trigger the collection of signatures for an abrogative referendum, spearheaded by NGOs who would take the lead.

But even this would inevitably drag the PN into a culture war that further erodes its fragile coalition of liberal and conservative voters, handing Labour another golden opportunity to project itself as the defender of a more liberal and progressive country.

Understandably the PN may be wary of a re-edition of a ‘Kristu Iva, Cannabis le’ kind of campaign.