At this juncture in the Nationalist Party’s history, it would be wise for the entire party if it were to refresh in its mind what does it stand for, what it has stood for in Malta’s history and consequently what it will stand for in the coming times.

Before we begin, we must make a proviso. Not all the past history of the PN is glorious and shiny. On the contrary, it has been tainted with close association to Fascism in the 1930s when its defence of Malta’s Italianita’ led its leaders to close relations with Mussolini’s Italy.

Nevertheless, even in those long ago days, the party had its leaders who symbolize what is best in its tradition. People like Nerik Mizzi who did not enrich himself through politics so much so that his widow had to take up piano lessons after he died. Or Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, il-Gross, who had to take up court duty as a lawyer once he was out of politics, even when he was ill.

Such people left a lasting memory in those around them, not least in their own families. We speak of dead persons because to speak of living ones would be to maybe not see the whole dimension of the person and thus risk to skimp on praise.

What does the party stand for?

Its logo says Religio et Patria. Unfortunately, in recent times, this slogan has been turned into something hollow. The party was never a church party. Not even in the hot 1960s. George Borg Olivier kept his party as independent of the church as he could do. It was Herbert Ganado who was most definitely the church party, and look where that got him.

Today Malta has changed drastically and recent laws allowing divorce, civil marriage, gay marriage etc have marked a changed society. The party was unsure how it should confront this new reality and one source of the present unease within it has derived from the past leader’s (Simon Busuttil) insistence to conform to the changes, which sounded a bit hollow at the best of times.

The party’s second slogan is Patria. The party was always the party of the patriots – those who yearned for, and at last obtained, Malta’s independence and stature as a sovereign country.

The party seeks glory as the party which got Malta in the EU and this is all true. But 13 years after membership it may perhaps be time to revalue EU membership and Malta’s patriotic duty. The past leadership, with his background as a successful MEP, preferred to look at Malta as an integrated part of the EU but looked askance at the many demands made by ordinary Maltese for a party and a government to be more patriotic. Instead, this task seemed to have been left to the extra-parliamentarians and the populists.

At this juncture, when the party is about to choose its new leader, it would seem that no one of the two candidates has expressed himself well enough on what sort of PN he would like to lead.

This is not an invitation for more rhetoric but rather for concrete commitments, beginning with personal lifestyles. The party, for all its failings, is always looked at as the party of accountability, of the rule of law, of transparency and of honesty. If the party departs from these bases, it might as well change its name and its slogans.

Unfortunately, this contest has turned into a contest for power and unfortunately too the party may make the next election campaign into a contest for power. Maybe the real fault lies in asking people to present themselves as candidates rather than the party’s top structures getting together and going to the person who they felt was most ideal to lead the party, as happens in other countries.