Since the late 1970s the Nationalist Party has sought as its main ideological beacon Christian Democracy and subsequently established strong links with Italy's Democrazia Cristiana. Over the span of 50 years, nothing within Democrazia Cristiana or the post-war Italy it constructed was or resembled anything remotely Christian, let alone Catholic.
The same can be said for the Nationalist Party locally which has become an almost dead and diluted party ideologically thanks to half a century of bland Centrism which moved the party closer to the ideological left, and paved the way for Labour's ultra-liberalism.
Antonio Gramsci once said of the Christian Democrats, "Perciò non fa paura ai socialisti l'avanzata impetuosa dei popolari [...] I popolari stanno ai socialisti come Kerensky a Lenin", which means that to the socialists, the rise of the centrist Popular Party is nothing to worry about, as they are to them the equivalent of Kerensky to Lenin. To put this in historical context, Alexander Kerensky led the liberal Provisional Russian Government following the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. In making compromises with the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, the latter ultimately overthrew him.
Now the PN, simply wanting to be Labour minus the corruption, finds itself in a situation where it continues veering leftward but constantly finding itself outcompeted by PL on liberal issues. The PN's leftward drift was not abrupt, but over a span and as a result of "dialogue" and "compromise" with traditional ideological opponents. This drift reached its climax with a Labour victory in 2013. In the local scene therefore we can say that, the PN is to Labour, the equivalent of Kerensky to Lenin. Not so different from what Gramsci said of the Partito Popolare a century ago.
The party, which was founded on the principles and values of nationalism and Catholic social teaching and has as its motto Religio et Patria, has not only forgotten these roots but has ignored them deliberately for political gain in a move which aims to please everyone, but ultimately pleases nobody as can be seen by opinion polls over the last 15 years.
This betrayal of its core values can be clearly seen when a PN government allowed divorce to be legalised, opening the doors for the disintegration of the family and the subsequent social and moral consequences suffered by the nation. This also paved the way for further social liberalisation which Labour would ultimately take advantage of and leave the PN in the Opposition without them putting up any real ideological opposition.
On issues pertaining to multiculturalism and immigration, the PN has typically either stayed quiet or criticised the government for denying entry to immigrants. From time to time, a brave lad from within the party tries to speak out on the issue but is then silenced by the Stalinist like attitude of the liberal elite within their ranks. The PN ignores what other European nations have experienced due to mass immigration. Multiculturalism not only weakens the identity of a nation but also deconstructs the concept of social cohesion. Mass immigration does not result in assimilation but in the creation of ghettos.
On LGBT issues, the PN thought it better to "move with the times" than stand its ground in favour of the traditional form of the family. But what fruit has this attempt at false modernisation bore? Those seeking civil liberties still see Labour as the party to go to, and not PN. In having no ideological anchor, the PN simply attempted to copy Labour just without having the winning aspect. A healthy democracy requires at least a party with a thesis and a party with an antithesis. Having only two parties in Parliament is already democratically stifling, but having these same two parties share the same ideological position means a borderline single party state.
The PN is about to appoint its fifth leader in just 12 years, which means that since the 2013 defeat, counting Lawrence Gonzi, the PN on average would have had a leader every 2.5 years. It is clear that changing leaders is not the main solution for PN, but rather a change in direction, discovery of a mission and ideological consistency distinct from that of Labour.
In a country frayed by materialism and relativism - trends encouraged by the governing Labour Party - the PN should stop attempting, often unsuccessfully, to imitate Labour and instead present a vision for the country which is the antithesis to Labour's neo-liberal cosmopolitanism. This means abandoning its bland centrism and cheap populism, and look at the winning formula which centre-right parties are taking on the continent. In other words, a return to patriotic and Christian roots.
What this would mean for PN in the short-term is that it would need to get rid of the bourgeois bohemians who have plagued it within its ranks and stop being servile to left wing and classist NGOs. In the long-term, it would mean a PN which actually opposes Labour's ideological framework, offers a moral alternative, and actually speaks to voters who no longer identify with the party instead of recoiling at the thought of mingling with the plebeians.
In Italy, Democrazia Cristiana no longer exists and its ideology is seldom relevant. Rather it is the patriotic party of Fratelli d'Italia and the parties of the right which are governing Italy and have taken the support of the voter base which once belonged to DC. These are the signs of the times which the PN has failed to take advantage of, and so long as it keeps on ignoring them it will end up meeting the same fate as Italy's DC.