Guest Post: The Problem With The Nationalist Party
Prior to the European Parliament elections, I had the opportunity to interview ex-Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.
This interview was conducted in a very untraditional manner, focusing more on interesting observations from prominent politicians regarding Malta’s political landscape.
Many presume that the principal reason for the Partit Nazzjonalista’s downfall since 2013 is due to Joseph Muscat’s success. Naturally, I couldn’t resist asking him directly, “Do you think you broke the PN?”
I didn’t expect Muscat to act as an advisor for the Partit Nazzjonalista. In fact, while drafting these questions at home, I predicted his response, and he delivered exactly as anticipated by saying, “I think the Partit Nazzjonalista broke themselves.”
But he didn’t stop there; he provided a very detailed analysis of his thoughts on the modern-day PN, parts of which I will use for this analysis. While it is obvious to virtually everyone that the PN has lost their touch, one may wonder… how has the Partit Nazzjonalista lost so much relevance in Malta’s political landscape throughout the past decade?
Since colonial days, the Partit Nazzjonalista, together with the Partit Laburista, has been a dominant force in shaping Malta’s political landscape.
Throughout the past century, from the language question to independence to Malta’s accession to the European Union, the PN has always had clearly defined policy positions which galvanised the party’s vision for the country. However, when was the last time anyone really saw a visionary PN?
One could argue that the EU has been a double-edged sword for the PN. As a traditionally Christian Democratic party in a country where divorce legalisation was still seven years away, it had to contend with the influx of “liberal-progressive” European values such as equality, social justice, transparency, and political correctness.
It is no secret that the PN is segmented into three different factions—not just within the party, but also within their voter base. These factions are the Demo-Christian faction, the Party-First faction, and the Liberal faction.
Of course, there is nothing particularly distinct about having three different factions within a political party; this is very common, especially within two-party states. However, the PN seems to be consistently silent on critical domestic issues, primarily evidenced in the case of immigration.
What is the reason for the PN’s silence on such critical issues? Of course, I do not know the whole truth; only those working a 9-5 shift in the Dar Ċentrali’s 4th floor know that. However, from conversations I’ve had with current and former PN members, the answer seems obvious.
Firstly, the PN’s three factions, the most dominant being the Party-First faction, often clash on moral arguments. The PN is terrified of negative press coverage and will do anything to avoid it—this plays into the migration argument.
As you have seen these past few years, the PN very rarely comments on the immigration crisis, and when it does, they are very careful with the language they use.
They will not propose solutions; instead, they will just ramble on, repeating the word “overpopulation” without providing a concrete way forward for the country regarding the issue. Why? Because this divides their voter-base.
Firstly, the Demo-Christian faction is largely anti-immigration. They believe, like a majority of the Maltese people, that Malta is too densely populated and infrastructure-deprived to maintain an influx of foreign workers within the country. Secondly, the Party-First faction will just vote PN because they can’t fathom the possibility of voting for any other party.
Even if other parties may better represent them, they would never do it—so in this case, immigration is a non-issue for them (and so is every other issue that isn’t painted in blue). Finally, the Liberal faction is more empathetic to immigration and solely votes PN as they are the “anti-corruption” party.
The Partit Nazzjonalista is very wary of these different factions; they cannot afford to lose any votes, so they will do all they can to simultaneously appease both the Demo-Christian and Liberal factions. This means that they cannot afford to take a solid, hard-line approach to immigration, as this will likely discourage Liberal voters.
I am using the immigration issue as a primary example which can be clearly evidenced; however, this could be said about virtually every other major issue which may divide the voter base.
The only issue that PN’s voting base may agree upon is corruption, which is generally a top concern for all factions involved. Therefore, it is no surprise to see corruption being the issue at the top of the PN’s agenda, as it is the only one which may unite their entire voting base.
This provokes the question: is the PN a single-issue party? Well, they occasionally propose ideas on singular issues such as energy and domestic security, but is that really enough? Of course not.
It is clear to most that throughout the years, the PN has let the issue of corruption dominate their political agenda to the extent that at times, the electorate cannot distinguish between the Partit Nazzjonalista and civil NGOs such as Repubblika.
Therefore, yes, I believe that at this current moment in time, the Partit Nazzjonalista is a single-issue political party which occasionally speaks about other issues.
That being said, I do think the PN could win the next general election, but they will not be able to govern. If the PN does want to win the election and govern effectively, they must find the courage to present a concrete vision for the country.
If they do not, they will continue to pave way to their status as a fringe party, and it will only be a matter of time before someone else takes up their position as the leading force of Malta’s centre-right.