WATCH | Alex Borg: ‘Our values do not make us anti-liberal’

Alex Borg was first elected leader in September last year and just nine months later led the Nationalist Party into an election it lost with a 22,000-vote margin.

Now, in his second coming after party councillors confirmed him as leader, he is promising to “revolutionise” the statute to ensure the party is more efficient, dynamic and open.

He now has five years ahead of him to shape the party and lay down the direction but Borg admits change will not be easy to come by.

In his first interview with the independent media following his confirmation vote, Borg talks about the PN’s need to be open and create space for those who are not traditionally Nationalists to feel comfortable in the party.

He defends the Opposition’s decision to walk out of parliament when the Equality Bill came to the vote, insisting the PN could not participate when there were more than two dozen organisations of different persuasions calling for more consultation. Borg insists, the Opposition agrees in principle with the law but wants the government to go back to the drawing board, listen to the concerns raised, make the necessary amendments and then proceed with a parliamentary vote.

The following is a transcript of the interview. Some parts have been edited for clarity and brevity.

In the last election the Nationalist Party lost by 22,000 votes. It is my impression that despite this significant loss there are some within the party, who still considered this a victory because the gap was halved. Where is the humility required to understand why the PN lost?

[The election] …it was definitely a loss. We have to be realistic. The people chose the Labour Party once again to lead the government for the next five years and we recognise that in a democracy we have to submit to the will of the people. The moment the election result was confirmed, I called the prime minister to wish him well for the next five years… at no point did I say it was not a loss…

But I cannot ignore the positive aspects. I became Opposition leader six months before the election. I did not have Robert Abela’s luxury of having been in the role of prime minister for six years. Nonetheless, despite being an electoral loss, and a substantial one at that, within the grand scheme of things we achieved positive things. We started with a 40,000-vote deficit. This election also showed the Nationalist Party increasing its votes across all districts, especially in Gozo. In Gozo, there was the largest swing towards the PN. We also saw strong performances in districts that are traditionally Labour. These things cannot be ignored. We learn from them and build on them for the next five years.

There was also the phenomenon of Labour voters who stayed at home. You did not manage to convince them to shift their vote. They preferred not to vote.

In the few months I was leader, these people may not have trusted me to deliver on where I wanted the country to go. But now, I have a longer period to convince them we truly have the political will to lead this country on the right path. It’s like having a product, which you will not buy before being 100% convinced of it. After seeing the results of this product, you will eventually go for it. Our target for the next five years is to strengthen ourselves internally, build our credibility, and for me to become more mature and gain more political experience, so that when the next general election arrives, I will be in a better position to win over the support of a majority of people.

The last time the PN won an absolute majority was in the 2003 general election—the one that decided the fate of Malta’s EU membership. Since then, 23 years have passed and throughout this period, the PN failed to find the formula to convince an absolute majority of voters to rally behind it. What will you be doing different, to change this predicament?

In 2003, I was eight years old. I’ve read the party’s political history and we need to understand where we can improve things and build on the positive aspects to acquire people’s trust. At the end of the day, I am not someone who looks to the past but rather towards the future… we need to learn from the past, we need to address those things where people felt we wronged them, but we also need to build on what is good...

In your speech after you were confirmed leader, you announced a revision in the statute to modernise the party, make it more efficient and become more open. You also warned that the process will not be easy. What will change? And what will not be easy?

Several things will change. They will not be cosmetic changes… this will be a revolutionary change, something the party has never experienced. This will change the dynamics within the party; the structures. It will make the party more dynamic, more modern and more in tune with people’s reality. We will not be throwing away the party’s values but we will have a more practical statute; the statute should serve the party and not the other way round…

What will not be easy in all this? Will there be individuals who feel left out?

This is a statute that has been revised over the years but in its majority, it is the statute the party adopted upon its creation. This is something people have become accustomed to and change is difficult for people to accept. I know that I form part of a conservative party but I believe, people are today more recipient to change. My own election is a clear certificate that the party has become more progressive in outlook. I am a 30-year-old young person and not a typical PN leader. The fact that councillors and members chose me shows they are more recipient to change… There will be some who will express doubts initially because this will be a radical change…

When you insist on the need for the party to be more open; what are you saying exactly?  Because the flipside of this is that until now the party has not been open enough. Do people with liberal views have a place in the PN?

It’s not just a question of being open but we have to ensure that those who do approach us are comfortable to work here. If someone, who has voted Labour all their life comes to us, I want that person to be comfortable joining us and working within the party structures… I want people of good will to be comfortable being part of the PN…

For the party to reach an absolute majority it needs to grow beyond its core. You mentioned the party values but society may be asking for a different attitude from your end. How can someone, who is liberal feel comfortable in the PN?

Our values do not make us anti-liberal. Values are not there to divide people but rather to unite them. And that is the manner by which the statutory reforms will embrace people with differing views but who all have an end goal—to see a better Malta and Gozo…

The PN said that in principle it agrees with the Equality Bill put forward by the government but when it came to the final vote, which required a two-thirds majority, you walked out of parliament, preventing the required majority from being reached. For those who cherish equality and believe in the importance of that law, they will see the PN in the same light as the party, which in the past had abstained on the civil unions law and opposed certain changes to IVF. Isn’t there a gulf between your words and the facts?

I am not uncomfortable because the choice to exit parliament was not because we disagreed with the law—if we did, we would have voted against it. We walked out of parliament to give a voice to the voiceless. There were 26 NGOs and not all were conservative—they included the MGRM, the Chamber of Commerce, Women for Women, Graffitti—that expressed concern over a lack of consultation.

Can I vote in favour or against a law when no opportunity was given to those that will be impacted directly to be consulted. We had warned the minister on the lack of consultation… this bill had nothing to do with what had been presented in previous years. The bill was only handed to the Opposition 11 days before [it was discussed]; how could we be expected to consult with all these groups, gather their proposed amendments and table our proposals in parliament? We walked out of parliament not because we were against the law, otherwise we would have voted against.

The final aim was the same because the law did not pass.

If we voted against it would not have gone back to the drawing board. We created the opportunity for the law to go back to the drawing board; to consult with these groups…

These different groups put forward proposals for change that could be conflicting. What I want to know is where does the PN stand on this law?

In principle we are in favour. Malta and Italy are the only countries without a specific human rights commissioner. I am aware of the need to have such an institution. But at the end of the day, we have to understand that the organisations, which will be mostly impacted by the commission’s work, were not consulted… these are not just conservative organisations; some are conservative, others are liberal, others have no political inclination… We now have the opportunity to go back to the drawing board, discuss it and see how we can make it better and when we have a law that carries with it widespread consensus, we will vote in favour… [our walkout] was a message to the government that it will not steamroll over the Opposition, especially on something where the government requires the Opposition’s consensus. Once proper consultation takes place and the necessary amendments are done, the PN will vote in favour.

You are saying you will not allow the government to steamroll over the Opposition. You walked out of parliament and you also tabled a motion of no confidence in Miriam Dalli. Will we be seeing a more assertive and aggressive Alex Borg and Opposition in this legislature?

I will always seek balance. We need to be an effective Opposition to keep the government in check. The government has a mandate for the next five years to implement its promises. We will be making sure that these promises are fulfilled. But we will also be an alternative government that puts forward its own proposals and when we criticise, we do so constructively and put forward solutions. What happened yesterday [the motion of no confidence in the energy minister because of power cuts] was not the result of a one-off incident or something that could not be foreseen. Miriam Dalli was not appointed energy minister in this legislature… when the crisis of electricity outages started in the summer of 2023, we had already warned that unless there was going to be a serious investment plan for the distribution network, we will continue having similar problems every summer.

[…]

The outages were predictable and we had warned about this; certain localities spent hours without electricity. It’s not my style to ask for people’s heads to roll but the decision to put forward a motion of no confidence in the minister was the result of several warnings we gave; warnings that were made in a National Audit Office report... Ultimately, political responsibility has to be shouldered. An apology does not suffice…

You emphasised the need for an automatic compensation mechanism when households suffer electricity outages for several hours. Will you be putting forward a private members’ bill?

We are open to any amendment that can strengthen the voice of the people. Today, we have a compensation system that is not automatic, is stifled by bureaucracy and excludes people… energy is a matter of life or death [for some people].

What would you have done differently if you were in Castille?

The Labour government has been in power since 2013. Since then, it had every chance to invest and avoid having such a situation. But it’s not just that; who chose to adopt this type of economic growth model? The Labour Party. It went for a model that grew the population; tourism exploded and at the same time it failed to invest in the infrastructure to sustain all this. This is why we now have a faltering hospital with an emergency department that cannot cope and with overworked healthcare workers; electricity cuts and beaches polluted with sewage. The utilities are not coping with consumption… what did the government expect us to do; keep quiet and ignore people’s voices?

[…]

We would have invested more in the high voltage network, in distribution centres to meet the demand, and more investment in renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy.

What position does the Nationalist Party have on the illegally-built and later sanctioned, Manoel Island padel courts?

We were clear on this. The entity responsible for any shortcoming is the Labour Party and the government, which on election eve promised that Manoel Island will become a national park but we are now witnessing a situation where this is being eroded gradually. I will not attack Gżira United because at the end of the day they are a football team and it should have been the government to help them with a solution to have adequate sports facilities if it truly had the political will to help football clubs…

In Manoel Island, what really angered people was the usual philosophy adopted by some businessmen—let’s face it, it is Gżira United but the padel courts are a commercial enterprise belonging to the club president—of build first, sanction later. This attitude frustrates people.

I attack the system and the present government, which says one thing to entice you to vote for it and after the election does something different… on Manoel Island we have always been consistent…

Will you remain consistent? Gzira’ former mayor Conrad Borg Manche, today a PN MP, said on Facebook that Gżira United today have no land title because the one they had was superseded when the land passed on to MIDI plc and now a new lease agreement has to be done. But then you had former Nationalist Mayor Ian Micallef, who is the club’s secretary, who hit out at Borg Manche. There are these differing voices that make you wonder whether the PN is totally on board with what environmental groups and residents are saying.

If I am not totally on board on Manoel Island, we would not have issued a statement on the matter. We are consistent. It is government that is not consistent because it promised one thing before the election and acted otherwise afterwards…

I am informed that Gżira United’s top brass was frustrated with the PN because they need to have their own facilities.

We never attacked Gżira United. We always supported football clubs and sports organisation because we believe in them. Our statement was on Manoel Island and the government’s hypocrisy.

Do you agree with the padel courts on Manoel Island? Today they are sanctioned but doubts linger as to whether the club has a title over the land.

Now that they are sanctioned; it’s useless. Sanctioning is part of law…

But it does not mean the land belongs to them.

That is something legal, not political. If it transpires they have no title on the land; that is another matter.

Do you agree that Gzira Utd should be given back that land?

Before I have the legal documents in hand showing to whom the land belongs, I cannot comment. If I have the papers showing me otherwise, I will be able to comment. As we stand today, sanctioning is part of the procedure. Now that it is sanctioned, there is no turning back.

Sanctioning does not determine land ownership.

If papers emerge showing otherwise, we will act differently.

Conrad Borg Manche was clear enough. The club has no land title.

I am like St Thomas, unless I see the documents, I will not comment.

Have you met Conrad Borg Manche?

I just met him yesterday. He’s doing a good job…

You spoke of introducing targets for your MPs, including how many people they meet and how many feasts they visit. Is it possible that we’ve reduced politics to the number of feasts a member of parliament has visited? Isn’t politics so much deeper than going to a feast and taking a selfie just to show you’ve been there, even if for just five minutes?

As a politician you have several targets that include this [attending feasts] but not just… we need to work in a structured and professional manner if we want to be in government…

You can set targets of how many policy papers MPs put forward.

I did mention this. One of the targets is being close to people but there are other indicators: Contact with people, parliamentary work, including PQs and bills, White Papers…

So, you will be pulling Stephen Spiteri’s ear because statistics show he was the one who tabled the least number of PQs.

Stephen Spiteri received 8,000 votes in the last election; there isn’t much to pull his ear for. At the end of the day, he obtained that support in Labour-leaning districts. As for the parliamentary performance we have to see the circumstances that led him not to be present in parliament and ensure a greater presence… the KPIs are several, including meetings with social partners and every month we will be given a report. I will make sure the system will work. We will not set KPIs and ignore them like the government did with Miriam Dalli, who failed to perform year after year despite the KPIs that were set…

You are creating a new deputy leader role. When will this happen and do you have any preference?

We are targeting the week after the Independence Day activities to conclude the election for deputy leader. I will not endorse anyone to the detriment of someone else. I have just been given a fresh mandate by councillors and the worst thing I can do is handpick the deputy leader and disregard councillors… there are several MPs who have the qualities.

Is there interest in the role?

There is. They want to feel part of the leadership that will lead us to electoral victory…

The current deputy leader, Alex Perici Calascione, and Secretary-general Charles Bonello, were part of the leadership team with you. Should they resign from their roles?

They were elected by party councillors and once their term expires it will be up to councillors to decide…