|
In the aftermath of the PN’s General Council James Debono delves in the speeches of councillors and party officials to explore where the PN is heading. He also caught up with Wenzu Mintoff and Michael Falzon two political analysts from the opposite sides of the political fence
After defending the wisdom of the Zejtun and Marsa strategy, PN General Secretary Joe Saliba turned to the proverbial wisdom of the wise King Solomon found in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
“There is a time for sowing and a time for reaping, a time to give birth, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted. A time to tear down, and a time to build up. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing; a time to be silent, and a time to speak”
“People normally seek solace in the Bible in times of illness, mourning and other personal tragedies. While people are enduring material hardships, the Nationalist high priests have little to offer in terms of material redemption. Instead the PN is offering a sort of spiritual redemption,” observes Wenzu Mintoff.
Yet just as King Solomon of old envisioned a time of peace and prosperity for the troubled land of Israel, Saliba is envisioning the time, presumably before the next general elections when the PN will reap the fruits it is sowing. Nobody in the General Council saw fit to question whether the party is sowing the seeds properly to ensure these will eventually bear fruit. But many in the council blamed the party for not communicating well with the electorate.
Frank Discussion
At least on that aspect the discussion was quite frank. As former Nationalist Minister and political analyst Michael Falzon observes “Most speeches at the PN General Council were more frank than usual: there were hardly any of the lip-serving, self-congratulatory useless speeches that unfortunately had become the norm in such events. The contributions were more business-like, admonishing the party administration for its shortcomings and emphasising that there is something wrong with the communication between the party elite and the party grassroots.”
This was also the conclusion of a report presented by Evelyn Vella Brincat. Rather than blaming the people for not understanding the government, the PN is acknowledging that it has only itself to blame for not reaching out to them. The report proposed ongoing house visits, a more efficient system of communication and more contact between the grass roots and the party.
The message was clear: “lets go out and look for the lost sheep to convince them to return to the fold.”
Religious Materialism
But what can convince PN voters to return to the fold? Speakers like Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici invoked Christian Democratic principles and pointed out the contrast between the PN’s Christian beliefs and the MLP’s “Marxist materialism,” In contrast to this, Parliamentary Secretary Tonio Fenech invoked consumerism and materialism. Fenech’s message was clear: the middle classes will return to us because they owe their material comforts to Nationalist governments. Fenech recounted how a woman who told him that all she got from joining the EU are higher water and electricity bills. Looking around him Fenech observed that the women owned a TV, a DVD, a mobile phone, a PC and an Internet connection. This was the revelation Fenech needed to find the right words to convert the disgruntled woman. Why are you grumbling, don’t you owe all these material things to work done by successive Nationalist governments? According to Fenech he was so successful that she invited him to speak to her entire family. If all disgruntled Nationalists are so naïve, the party has little reason to worry.
But Fenech’s call for the PN to meet people in their homes struck a definite chord in the Council.
This call was reflected in a report presented by Evelyn Brincat. She also mentioned the need for a healthier balance between political and commercial content on NET TV. Surprisingly few councillors apart from Herbert Messina Ferrante complained about the bad press the party is receiving especially in the Sunday papers. David Agius also supported the call for a more political Net TV. Nobody pointed out that invasive house visits and a more propagandistic TV station could be counterproductive in attracting voters with a critical mind.
So too could the use of religion in partisan speeches. “The PN wants to give the subliminal impression that it is the only party aggregating Catholics,” observes Mintoff. “Even Alfred Sant was conditioned by the PN’s attempt to monopolise religious sentiments when he invoked Saint Francis of Assisi during a mass meeting.” Mintoff notes that this has been a historic trait of the PN, which was only intensified when in his inaugural speech Gonzi declared that “God is with us.”
One can also attribute the religious revival in the PN to a need to go back to basics. In search of a new identity after leading Malta in to the European Union and restoring a sense of democratic normality in the country, the PN is going back to basics.
Separating the wheat from the chaff
Another biblical metaphor invoked in the General Council was the need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Judging from the result of the election for the executive party, councillors have followed the botanical advice of the party’s secretary general.
Michael Falzon attributes the exclusion of dissidents from the party’s executive to the fact that the “dissenters” have washed the party’s dirty linen in public. “Many who agreed with what the ‘dissenters’ had been saying, completely disagreed with the way the debate had been shifted into the public domain. The PN is used to internal debate and a member of the executive is expected to raise his disagreement within that body.” On the other hand Michael Falzon warns the party not to disregard “the genuine complaints about the way certain decisions are made.” Falzon insists that it would be a mistake if the Party ignores criticism on “the infamous abstention from the Zejtun and Marsa Council electoral races.”
The fine line
Lawrence Gonzi’s speech at the end of the Council did not address the concerns expressed by councillors. In his speech he made no visible attempt to reach out towards the 35 per cent who supported the excluded dissident candidates. “Gonzi’s speech should “have acknowledged the criticism in the councillors’ speeches more. It was a very good speech from a national political point of view but was a far cry from a dialogue with the councillors,” observed Falzon.
Michael Falzon finds Gonzi’s insistence that he is not prepared to adopt short-term popular measures at the expense of the well-being for the nation, reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘This lady is not for turning’ dictum. Yet as Falzon observes “the line between sensible steadfastness and arrogance could be a fine one indeed. But what matters is the end result. I am sure that Lawrence Gonzi and all PN supporters must agree on this.”
Labour executive member Wenzu Mintoff is far from convinced that Gonzi is not after power. Gonzi’s declaration that he is not interested in power begs the question: was the PN interested in power as an end in itself when it failed to mention the country’s structural problems before the last elections? Wenzu Mintoff observes that through its pre-electoral omissions the PN was taking the people for a ride. “Gonzi is asking the people to judge him through his actions and not through his words. It seems that voters have been doing this in the past three elections.”
Electoral fatigue after sixteen years of Nationalist governments could be the PN’s major difficulty. Gonzi became Prime Minister after serving as Vice Prime Minister in a government which postponed taking difficult decisions before 2003, presumably not to endanger membership in the European Union. As a result of the omissions of previous PN governments Gonzi faces a sceptical electorate, an electorate which is experiencing austerity instead of the promised prosperity.
It will take more than words to remedy for the deficit in confidence the people have for the party in government.
|
