|
The decision by the Nationalist Party not to contest the local elections in Zejtun and Marsa is politically short sighted and will have dire consequences on the party’s long-term political interests. It smacks of abject cowardice. Surprisingly, it comes from the same party which proudly and so successfully introduced local councils onto the local political landscape.
It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction conditioned by the perceived likelihood of a bad mid-term electoral test. The repercussions of abstaining from the vote go far. The significant opinions in the media by Nationalist activists has drawn a wedge between the few persons taking decisions at the party central office and the core voter still emotionally linked to the Zejtun tal-Barrani incidents.
The decision to withdraw candidates and cause the elections not be held was ill-advised for a number of reasons.
No political party worth its salt shies away from an electoral challenge. The PN’s move will make it that more difficult for party activists to get the voter turnout in other districts being contested by the Nationalist party. It is also particularly of concern coming from a party which has insisted that political parties should contest local elections and that has adamantly refused to pull out of contesting even in a situation where the Labour Party has repeatedly offered to withdraw if the Nationalist Party were to do the same. The decision belittles the democratic process. Democracy is all about voter choice and the withdrawal has left the citizens of Zejtun and Marsa – Labour, PN or with any other leaning - with no choice at all. Parties only decide not to contest where electoral rigging or gerrymandering is at stake which can hardly be the case here.
The decision also de-motivates the candidates that showed a willingness to contest the Zejtun and Marsa localities. It certainly makes these candidates look stupid in the district, more so if proved that the candidates themselves did not know about the decision and where not consulted or as a minimum informed, prior to the decision being taken.
It will make it all the more difficult to find the same or other candidates in three years time. The repercussions however of such a decision will be most felt on the emotional plain at grassroots level.
Zejtun arouses high emotional responses from the average Nationalist. Nationalist voters cannot forget the thuggery of both Labour supporters and the police during the gas incidents at tal-Barrani. Zejtun in the mid-eighties was the Nationalists’ most heroic moment. Retreat was not considered than. It should be even less on the cards today. The core group running the party must take note of the general confusion de-motivation and disbelief their decision has left among the grass roots.
Significantly and for the first time, dissent is beginning to surface within the Nationalist party. Ironically this may prove to be a very positive development as it will finally make the PN look like all modern parties, as a broad church with different currents of opinions that are expressed publicly.
Although this certainly was not the intention of the core group which, according to the Secretary General, took the ‘intelligent’ decision to retreat. The opinions publicly expressed by Frank Zammit a member of the party executive, Michael Mercieca a PN candidate on the third electoral district, Marisa Micallef a former candidate and pro-PN columnist and Victor Ragonesi a former Secretary General of the party are significant. The party core strategy group would do well to take note. Their views are in synch with Nationalist public opinion and spot on. They are the voice of many Nationalists who fail to understand the strategic decision taken. The party would be foolish to dismiss their dissent as insignificant. The decision is inexplicable save as an attempt to dilute a looming electoral disaster or an attempt to foster voter apathy. Even if these were the reasons motivating the decision it remains a highly dangerous and short-sighted strategy. Would it not have been wiser to test ones strength at such a politically difficult moment?
Would it not have been wiser to see if this poll tallies with the opinion polls of the political parties? Most of all would it not have been politically correct to inform the candidates and all members of the party executive of the decision taken prior to its implementation? It is debatable whether a decision with such far-reaching political consequences should have been taken privately by a restricted group. Here one is not simply talking about a strategic decision but about the future electoral fortunes of a political party. The decision should, as a minimum, have been debated within the party structures.
Not surprisingly it is difficult to find a person outside party central office that agrees with the decision taken.
|
