Allow me to refer to the article in The Malta Independent, Saturday 23 August - 'PN debate: Borg wants to appoint a CEO, Delia says Secretary General post must not be weakened'

And I quote 'During the pre-recorded debate which aired on Thursday night, PN MP Alex Borg said he wanted to appoint a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) that would take over the financial aspects of the party, whose role would be to maximise the income from the party's assets'.

Coming from an aspiring party leader, this is really worrying. It would have been more appropriate to refer to a CFO (Chief Financial Officer) in maximising the income of the party's assets, but what about the financial debts and obligations the PN has? Who is going to handle these?

While this idea looks seemingly attractive at first glance, it might not hold up when examined through the lens of political reality. A political party such as the Nationalist Party differs from a corporation; it isn't simply a profit-seeking entity with shareholders and customers. It is instead a dynamic entity built upon shared values and principles, accountable to its tesserati and, indeed, the broader electorate. Introducing corporate structures carries the risk of eroding the party's core identity and blurring the lines of responsibility.

There's a reason the party has a general secretary, and it's far more than just a decorative role. The general secretary is central to the entire operation. The individual ensures executive decisions translate into tangible actions across local committees, regional branches, youth groups, and the various volunteer structures that make up the * party. More than just an administrator, the general secretary is a political officer chosen by, and therefore accountable to, tesserati, expected to wield both political influence and moral standing.

However, introducing a CEO complicates matters considerably. A CEO, by definition, assumes control of management, finances, staffing, and logistical operations. But these responsibilities arguably overlap with those already assigned to the general secretary. What exactly would remain for the general secretary if a CEO took over these areas? Would they become mere observers, relegated to a ceremonial position? Could the CEO, despite lacking direct accountability to the membership, exert more control than an elected official?

This is not merely a matter of theory. It goes right to the heart of the party's identity. A political party relies on trust. Activists dedicate their time, energy, and loyalty because they have faith in the structure and the people who lead it. This bond risks weakening if activists feel pushed aside by a corporate manager lacking any genuine connection to them. A party without the backing of committed activists ultimately becomes a hollow shell, reliant on paid staff and consultants, rather than conviction and commitment.

The position of general secretary, whether approved or elected, symbolises this commitment, and it grows from within the party. The authority of the role comes from the membership base. Conversely, the leader, the executive, or someone would appoint a CEO through a process unconnected to the membership. Such a process might create a divide between the top echelons of the party and the rank and file. The members, and with good reason, may very well ask: who is truly in charge of the party? Was it the general secretary they trusted, or the CEO brought in from outside?

The Nationalist Party has unfortunately suffered from ambiguous signals and distorted responsibilities. Over the last decade, too many voices claimed authority, too many factions pulled in different directions, and too many internal squabbles consumed energy that could have challenged the government. Adding yet another internal power centre is the last thing the party needs right now. Introducing a CEO wouldn't bring clarity, but confusion, potentially fostering tension between the general secretary, the leader, and the executive.

And let us not downplay the symbolic significance of this. Parties should not be pretending to be corporations, for that is simply not what they are. A party doesn't sell a product; it promotes a vision. The language of shareholders and boardrooms does little to inspire volunteers knocking on doors, organising rallies, or standing out on election day in all kinds of weather. The language of conviction, solidarity, and indeed, accountability, does.

By integrating corporate structures, the party risks signalling to its base that it no longer views itself as a movement of people, but more like a brand handled by professionals. Such a brand might well appear refined, but... is that truly the aim? You might see the term "efficiency" thrown around, especially when comparing things to an established business, but true efficiency isn't about simulating corporate structure. It springs from stable leadership, honest and open management practices, and a shared sense of purpose. A general secretary, given the right support and respect, can absolutely be the driver of that.

A powerful, supported secretary who takes ownership of their responsibilities, organizes things, and ensures everyone is accountable. This truly benefits a political party more than a business executive. If that secretary doesn't deliver, the members have the say in making a change. That's a perfect illustration of democracy in action. No similar process exists for a CEO.

Now, some might suggest a CEO to handle the complications of today's politics, and that's understandable. They might bring up the need to raise a lot of money, navigate the rules around financial regulations, and deal with the increasing demands of sophisticated political campaigns. It is important to address these legitimate concerns accordingly. But these problems don't suddenly mean we need to pass the buck. The general secretary has every right to bring in professionals-accountants, lawyers, campaign specialists- to take care of these technical aspects. That's smart delegation, not letting go of responsibility. One should recognise this difference as important. Delegation empowers the secretary by bringing in expertise. Relinquishing that power weakens the secretary, with crucial decision-making now in another's hands.

If a party opts for a CEO, there's a danger it becomes just another corporate brand, rather than a movement driven by its members. The PN doesn't require a CEO to be a serious political force. Look at European parties with long, established traditions-they rely on secretaries, treasurers, and strong internal committees, not on CEOs.

So, introducing a CEO into a party wouldn't magically modernise it, but empty it from the inside. Members should reflect on the consequences of the proposals. In the rush to bring in supposedly innovative ideas, some confuse modernisation with corporatisation. What a political party needs isn't a corporate manager, but political leadership with a strong sense of purpose, backed by a logical structure that keeps accountability at the heart of the membership. The general secretary continues to provide that structure. To weaken that is to hurt the core of the party.

The party is tackling too many complicated problems to experiment with changes that ultimately undermine accountability. Financial stability is fragile, unity is still uncertain, and the public's trust is shaky. Therefore, it is very important to have leadership within the party that is clear, strong, and responsible. The general secretary should carry that weight, and the party should avoid dispersing across original positions.

At its heart, a party isn't like a business. It can't just outsource its obligations to a CEO and still stay true to what it is. The general secretary should stay the central driving force of the party's organisation. Diminishing that role risks division, confusion, and decline. Politics revolves around people, not managers. And parties that forget that risk becoming completely irrelevant.