Grech’s autopsy: brutal honesty or self-preservation?

Bernard Grech has clearly warned that in the absence of a radical restructuring of the party’s finances, the party does not even have the liquidity required to contest upcoming European and local elections. Not only is the party indebted to the tune of €32 million but the party media is also losing thousands of euros every month.

His stark warning is that in the absence of very tough decisions the party’s very “existence” will be at stake. In his speech, Grech hinted that the solution lies in selling the party’s assets namely its political clubs. 

Grech’s poisoned chalice

But while his speech was refreshingly honest in giving party councillors a truer picture of the party’s financials, something never done by any of his predecessors, the message sent was that in this critical stage the party “cannot afford the creation of more divisions in a party which was already fractured.” In this sense Grech seems keen on discouraging any internal challenge by presenting any contestant with a poisoned chalice.

He also presents his choice of hanging on as leader, despite the electoral drubbing, as a cross which he is willing to bear to enable his party to take the tough decisions which should have been taken years ago. In short, according to Grech the party is too sick to withstand another bout of factional fighting. And by hanging on, he is putting himself on the sacrificial altar, by assuming responsibility for a decision which are bound to hurt. It would be difficult for anyone to argue with that. In fact, anyone contesting against Grech, risks being depicted as an upstart wan- nabe interested more in vain glory than the party’s best interests. 

That is why he told councillors “that the reason why he is still here is to offer the best possible outcome in a difficult situation” and that while he has “no divine right” to lead the PN, it is not the time for another “upset” in the party. In short: ‘it’s either more chaos or me’. And this assertion may not be far from

the truth.

Aiming for the low-hanging fruit

But in a bid to neutralise the perception that he is simply clinging to power, Grech is giving himself a benchmark by committing himself to submit his leadership to another vote if he fails to elect a third MEP in upcoming MEP elections in 2024.

And intelligently, Grech has tied his future to the low hanging fruit, that of winning a third seat which the PN had won under Busuttil in 2014 despite losing by a 34,000-vote margin.

This raises the possibility that Grech will remain at the helm in the absence of any substantial reduction of the gap between the two parties in elections where the country’s government is not even at stake. 

The Metsola factor

Grech may even benefit from the ‘Metsola’ factor, which may well facilitate the achievement of this limited target. For with her stature enhanced by her current role as EU parliament president, Metsola may well be rewarded by a vote of public appreciation even among independent and middle of the road voters, some of which probably abstained in the last general election.

And her presence on the PN list is bound to boost the turnout among PN leaning voters who would otherwise stay at home or vote for a third party. The likelihood of the party winning back the third seat will increase if these voters also continue voting for the other PN candidates on the list. So matching Metsola with new promising candidates untainted with the party’s toxic past, will be crucial for the party to win its third seat. For one risk is that a segment of Metsola voters would not transfer their vote to other PN candidates.

Perversely, some PN voters may well vote in droves for Metsola in the hope that she will return to Malta as the party ‘messiah’ – only to end up reinforcing Grech’s leadership. For after securing her election to the EP, Metsola will most likely be more interested in a possible confirmation in her present post than in taking over a party with dismal prospects of success.

In this sense Grech is craftily tieing his future to an election where Roberta Metsola will be the party’s greatest asset but without posing a threat to Grech. In fact, the more votes she will attract to the party, the more secure Grech will feel in his position as leader. This would not put an end to speculation on Metsola’s future ambitions. In fact, Metsola may well be making the calculation that her best chances locally would be of taking over the party’s leadership when it has a real chance of winning, that is, after the party’s financial woes are solved and the gap is narrowed in the next general election.

In short Grech may still pave the way

for Metsola to become Prime Minister in 2032.

But that depends on the party narrowing the gap in 2027 by recapturing the imagination of voters and presenting itself as a government in waiting. In fact, an improved performance in MEP elections may give the party a false sense of security. For to narrow the gap in a general election Grech himself needs to show that he has the depth, charisma and vision to turn things around, qualities he lacked in the last general election. 

Where is the vision?

But in his speech to councillors, Grech fell short of spelling out anything close to a political vision, which can reunite the disparate block of voters let alone win over new voters. Instead, Grech’s landmark speech was obscured by parallel news that his right-hand man Ray Bezzina, was now joining the DB Group – the developers behind the ITS land grab in Pembroke – as a director. This inevitably raised concerns on revolving doors and the party’s ties with a commercial group, which the party had criticised in the past as one of the beneficiaries of Labour’s land-use policies; this kind of news which validates abstention in elections.

Neither has Grech given any indication on future political direction. Grech is right in saying that voters cannot trust the party with the country’s finances if it can’t even take care of its own finances, and that voters dismiss the party’s proposals because they think the party is not in a position to implement them.

But this does not fully explain the party’s disconnection with different categories of voters ranging from ultra conservatives shunning any signs of the party moving with the times to more liberal young educated voters who feel that the party is completely disconnected from their values and aspirations.

Instead Grech seems to place his hopes in a rejuvenated parliamentary frontbench which may be key to any recovery especially if MPs stop shooting from the hip and operate within a strategy. He is also right in saying that sustainability is a perquisite for a party focused on policy making. But a strategy also needs to be grounded in an overall vision.

Instead Grech presented himself as a manager intent on “pruning” the party’s tree to ensure its very survival. For while Grech is right in saying that to focus on politics the party needs first to be sustainable, the party desperately needs to find a raison d’etre.

With Labour repositioning itself as a centrist, big-tent liberal party, the PN remains disoriented and unable to fulfil the aspirations of different categories of voters who have different values and react differently to the vast social, demographic and economic changes happening under Labour. For the PN is facing existential problems which remained unsolved ever since the party steered Malta in to the European Union. And it may well be that the party’s ideological disconnection is as big a threat to the very existence of the party, as its mounting debts.