The rival who shall not be named: PN’s election rules are stifling

The Nationalist Party has published the media guidelines it expects the prospective leadership candidates to follow over the next six weeks, while the due diligence process is underway. 

To say the guidelines are a disappointment is an understatement, especially from a political party that has made it its mantra to champion transparency and dialogue. The guidelines are restrictive and reminiscent of a siege mentality. They stifle debate, which should be the cornerstone of a leadership contest. 

While Adrian Delia and Alex Borg can give interviews to the independent media—after getting clearance from the party and following assurances that both will be featured—the party’s electoral commission has barred them from debating each other. The guidelines also give off Harry Potter vibes with the two prospective candidates unable to refer to each other—the rival who shall not be named! 

And trying to impose on independent journalists carrying out the respective interviews a condition that they should not ask questions about the other candidate is not only an affront to freedom of expression but also messy. 

It also tries to preclude independent journalists from asking very pertinent questions on the relationship between the two former allies and any alleged pacts between them, thus leaving even more room for speculation. 

The guidelines also stipulate that after the six-week due diligence process is over and the campaign proper kicks off, the candidates will only be allowed to give interviews to the PN’s media. In other words, a media blackout.  

While it is understandable that the PN should try to create a level playing field, this attempt to micro-manage the media-aspect of the leadership campaign under the guise of fairness and equity goes contrary to what one would expect from a political party in a democratic country. 

Why stifle debate? Why prevent a clash of ideas and values from taking place? Why fear having different views being contrasted? Why try to straight-jacket candidates? Why deny party members and the rest of the nation access to debates from which they can draw their own conclusions on who is best suited to lead the PN? 

This is a contest that will be decided by members but it is also of interest to the rest of the nation. 

Members will not only choose a party leader but also a vision, an inspiration, a set of values, which is why it is necessary to have a healthy debate and authentic dialogue. Individual interviews are important and necessary to explore issues and concerns in a more in-depth way but they are complementary to debate and dialogue between the candidates themselves and with others. 

Party members will also, potentially, be choosing the country’s next prime minister. Therefore, it stands to reason that they will also base their verdict on how the two candidates engage with the media. This is not a parochial contest but a national event. 

It is unfortunate that the PN has taken this road. There is still time to change direction. Such antics only contribute to erode public trust in what is an important process not just for the PN but also for the country. 

In the words of a former party functionary, who expressed his bewilderment at the guidelines on social media: “A party that aspires to lead a democratic country must first trust its own tesserati, not fear differing views. If they’re afraid of internal debate, how can they claim they’re ready to convince an entire nation?” 

The party must understand that its actions will be scrutinised by a much wider cohort of people than its own members. Voters will inevitably draw comparisons between the party’s behaviour now and how they perceive it will act if in government. 

The PN must realise that democracy begins at home. 

MaltaToday will not be expressing any preference but rather give space to both candidates to make their case. We will critically engage with Delia and Borg to understand where their ideological barometer lies. We will challenge them on their views concerning the environment, the relationship between politics and the construction industry, euthanasia, civil rights, foreign workers and immigration, among other issues. We will analyse what is being said and putting this into a wider context, as we always do. 

And we expect the candidates and the PN to respect our job. 

Nonetheless, there is nothing that precludes independent media houses from expressing their preference for one or the other of the candidates—this is normal in a democracy and neither the PN nor the candidates should be taken aback if it happens.