WATCH | George Vital Zammit on what being a nationalist means today

George Vital Zammit has the task of coordinating the Nationalist Party’s electoral programme but in doing so he is also trying to answer the existential question of what it means to be a nationalist today. He sits down with James Debono for a frank discussion.

George Vital Zammit, a public policy lecturer, embraces his dual role as a public intellectual and the coordinator of the Nationalist Party’s electoral programme. 

He was assigned the task to draw up the electoral programme by former PN leader Bernard Grech, a remit that was expanded under Alex Borg to also include organising a national convention on Malta’s future. 

Vital Zammit feels at ease in this dual role because his freedom to speak openly has never been curtailed. He tells me that he had made it clear he would walk away if it ever were. 

Vital Zammit urges more academics and thinkers to contribute to the national conversation, noting that even universities abroad are collectively taking public stances on issues such as the ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

For him, the PN’s national convention is an opportunity for the party to listen to diverse ‘informed’ voices, diagnose societal challenges, and find solutions. My interview with him unfolds as a conversation about politics with a capital ‘P’, as Vital Zammit straddles between detached analysis and a passionate commitment to make the PN electable and in a position to bring about the change he believes in. 

The following is an excerpt from the interview. 

The full interview can be followed on maltatoday.com.mt and our socials. 

The PN last won an absolute majority in 2003, driven by Malta’s EU accession, which united conservatives, liberals, and some left-leaning voters. What battle-cry could again unite such a diverse coalition? 

The recipe for the PN to regain an absolute majority is to remain a mosaic, a rainbow and a broad church of different perspectives… In this sense even our idea of nationhood is changing which begs the question of what makes one a nationalist today. 

What defines being a nationalist today? 

One of the biggest challenges facing Malta today is social harmony. What makes you a ‘nationalist’ today is a yearning for togetherness and collectiveness and a sense of nationhood. What we understand by nationalism is not fervent patriotism which pits us against foreigners. The PN is aspiring to lead a country where a fifth of the population and a majority in a number of towns are not Maltese and do not even have a vote. These are people who live with us. Being a nationalist today means aspiring for responsible leadership which guarantees social harmony… This is a challenge for our sense of community and the way we perceive ourselves as an island nation. 

Malta like the rest of Europe faces a demographic challenge of low birth rates affecting the future of pensions, the health system and elderly care and where foreigners are increasingly filling key gaps. How does the PN plan to respond? 

You cannot aspire to govern the country if you do not address this issue. Sure, where there is a shortage of labour one has to import it. Even in schools, foreigners are essential to keep up the maintenance and the same goes in old people’s homes, hospitals and infrastructure… But we should not import labour to make up for the loss of productive workers in the private sector when these are absorbed in a bloated public sector where they are often not really needed… The Labour government is also responsible for creating a system based on temping agencies which import workers as if these are any other product, a system which borders on human trafficking and slavery… A new government needs to address this. The idea of perceiving foreigners as our servants is abhorrent. For us nationalism is based on human rights, human dignity and respect for the rule of law. 

A number of long-term foreign residents in Malta build families and a sense of belonging, yet remain excluded from key aspects of social and political life, with non-EU citizens barred from local council voting while naturalisation lacks clear guidelines. Will the PN address this? 

During the past 12 years we have accepted the concept that citizenship and all the rights which come with it can be bought… The problem with this was that the main criteria through which one could acquire citizenship was wealth… This model is already being changed and I agree… But we should never forget that thousands of Maltese had emigrated to Australia, Canada, and the USA and that after a number of years they became citizens of these countries simply because they paid taxes there and sent their children to school there… Foreigners living in our midst are exactly in the same situation… Moreover, we even have people who have lived here for 20 years who are still regarded as ‘stateless’ and cannot even leave the country, even if they speak Maltese and regard Malta as their home… This is not acceptable… We need to address these situations… We cannot continue burying our heads in the sand if we really mean it when we uphold human dignity. 

You describe the PN as a mosaic, but it includes members who have fully embraced social reforms on civil liberties, like LGBTIQ rights and IVF access, alongside more conservative members who are uncomfortable... How can the party reconcile this internal contradiction? 

Definitely, the PN cannot advocate going forward while turning the clock back in a way that people lose rights they have gained in the past years… We should be proud that our country today has a level of inclusion which is good even when compared with that in other countries. It is the way things should be. For me this is beyond debate… Naturally there are those who do not feel comfortable with these reforms. That is why I believe in the politics of persuasion. Let’s not forget that in 2003 nearly half the country opposed EU membership which is now accepted by nearly everyone… But the PN is duty bound to speak not just on these civil liberties but also governance, the rule of law and decency in public administration… 

While the PN seems open to a free-vote on euthanasia, abortion remains taboo, with little room for discussion even about cases affecting a woman’s health, or pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, not to mention broader questions of bodily autonomy and choice….  

What I found refreshing in the leadership election was that both Adrian Delia and Alex Borg came with their own mindsets but they never spoke in an absolutist way. They never shut down the possibility of debate. They said they are against and referred to the party’s statute but they did not shut down the possibility of debate… 

But can people with pro-choice views be part of the PN’s mosaic and why does not the PN give a free vote on abortion? 

Yes, you can still be a part of the Nationalist Party because when you vote in an election you are not voting on a single issue as long as this issue for you does not override all others… There is a place for people who disagree with the party on abortion but agree with it on other issues... As regards granting a free vote on abortion, there is no current bill on this topic in parliament so one cannot speak of a free vote. Of course, there is a debate especially on the circumstances you mentioned like situations related to the health of the mother. The reality is that an argument evolves over time as happened in Ireland which is a Catholic country like Malta and which has reformed its abortion laws. The worst thing one can do is to stifle a debate. From my understanding this is something which the new leader of the Nationalist Party does not want to do. 

Alex Borg emphasised the idea of the Nationalist Party as a ‘party of the nation’ and ‘everyone’s party’. But is there a risk of catch-all politics where politicians try to please all and sundry? 

Yes, without any doubt choices have to be made. There is a difference between listening to everyone and being populist and trying to appease everyone. 

But people were confused by Alex Borg’s convoluted statements on towers in Gozo when alluding that towers may be considered in certain areas in Gozo while also criticising overdevelopment… 

This is a case of a few seconds from an interview being taken out of their context and extrapolated… this is not the mature discussion we need… The leader was very clear on his stance when addressing the meeting on Saturday, and I know how much he loves Gozo. But we cannot please everybody and we have to be clear that regulatory structures like the Planning Authority are not functioning well. By default, this authority seems predisposed to accept any project instead of assessing its sustainability. The PA is just one example… To avoid catch-all populism we need strong regulatory institutions. 

The public inquiry on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination clearly referred to the collusion between politicians, businessmen and institutions. What steps should be considered on this? 

It is a pity that many of the recommendations have not been implemented. Over three legislatures Labour has been most reluctant to implement good governance reforms…Sure we have introduced whistle blower protection but let’s not forget that the only time this status was given to someone it was granted abusively as confirmed in the law courts… For Labour good governance remains an anathema as proven by the latest National Audit Office report on the valuation of conditions on public land that Fortina had purchased. 

But can we trust the PN to implement governance reforms which would limit its power to grant favours and give its supporters the opportunity to have their turn to pig out? 

For us power is something which is lent and not given to us… We are not there to occupy and capture the state perpetually… But to ensure that this happens we need to have good regulatory structures not flawed ones like some introduced under Labour…