Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1104601
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 APRIL 2019 INTERVIEW A Sunday Times poll places Labour's support at 59%, versus 37% for the PN. This broadly echoes our own surveys, and also the European Commission's prognostications. There seems to be a sense of resignation to this fate, too… as though the PN has thrown in the towel, before even stepping into the ring. This is not the same PN that I remember from the 1980s and 1990s. Where has all the fighting spirit gone? People who, like me, have been active in the Nationalist Party since the 1980s, do see a differ- ence. Unfortunately, the PN did not succeed in reforming, or up- dating itself, to remain the party it always used to be. But I believe that the party will do more to attract more people in future: young people, people of integrity, people who are honest and cred- ible. I believe that these people – who look at politics as a mis- sion, or a vocation: call it what you will – will once again see the Nationalist Party as a vehicle for their concerns. But I also think that young people, in particular, are losing interest in politics alto- gether. Which is a pity. When I was young, it was the other way around. Young people were en- gaged, involved… the sensation was, 'you had to be there, to be part of the change'. Today, young people seem to feel no connec- tion with politics at all. And I think that today's generation of politicians bears some respon- sibility for this. Politicians have not always set the best example: without being partisan, the pre- sent government is not sending out the right message, in the way it deals with certain politicians, to young people who might be interested in entering politics. It is a situation that affects both parties, and the PN suffers from it too… By the same argument, however, the PN should be reaping the benefits of the government's loss of trust. Yet polls indicate that Labour's trust ratings have grown, while the PN keeps trailing far behind. How do you account for this? One of the shortcomings of the PN in recent years is that we didn't always acknowledge the changes that were taking place in society. So ironically, despite having been the party that revo- lutionised the country's institu- tions after 1987, and steered the country in the direction of EU membership – and whatever flaws we may have had, I believe we changed this country a lot, in a positive way – we reached a point where we no longer rec- ognised that society had con- tinued changing. We no longer projected that image of a 'fresh' party, always at the forefront of all the major challenges. But still, I don't agree that we lack the necessary motivation. I still see fighting spirit in the Nationalist Party. Recently the PN set up a new youth branch, called 'Future Leaders'… and you might tell me, so what? Another internal party structure? But believe me, there is a lot of enthusiasm. It has 70 members so far… is that a little? A lot? I don't know, but I can assure you they're engaged and involved. Now: the Labour Party has its own equivalent. I'm not saying we invented anything new. And I don't even think we'll manage to hold onto all those 70 members, in the long term. But some of them will stay. And if you don't even try to attract youngsters, you will have noth- ing… But the problem may have more to do with present leaders, rather than future ones. A few days ago, Nationalist MP Ivan Bartolo gave a speech in parliament, which – without mentioning names – underscored that the party's credentials have been tarnished as a result of that meeting with Yorgen Fenech. Jason Azzopardi tweeted the same thing, only much more explicitly, some days before. Let's face it: a substantial portion of the party rank and file have simply not accepted Adrian Delia as leader. Would you agree? It is clear that there are dif- ferences of opinion within the party. What I see positive in this, however, is that on the funda- mental issues, there is no divi- sion. That we are a party against abortion, for example: there is no division on that. On policies and principles, the party is united. On issues like when life begins, and the need to protect all human life from conception, to natural death… OK, but issues such as abortion are extremely specific, and represent only a fraction of any political party's full spectrum of interests. Is the PN united on anything else, apart from embryo protection? It's an important issue, though. It might not be to everyone, but the protection of human life, in all its stages, is essential to us, as the Nationalist Party. The La- bour Party, on the other hand, has internal differences of opin- ion on the issue [abortion], and you don't really know where you stand with it. But yes, we also have to acknowledge that – just as Labour had its own internal differences, such as between Sant and Mintoff in 1998 – there will always be these currents, after an electoral defeat. If I denied the existence of these currents, I would only be deceiving the public. People don't like that. Be- sides: Nationalist MPs are speak- ing up about it in public; so it is inevitable that journalists such as yourself will ask questions. For that same reason, however, I would say that these MPs – or candidates, activists, whoever – have an obligation to offer sta- bility to the party. Because you can't draw up policies, especially at European level, when there is instability within the party. The Nationalist Party had spent all those years as Malta's most sta- ble party: offering the people peace of mind that, whatever its other flaws, the PN could guar- antee stability in the country. So today, the first and most im- portant thing we have to do – as PN candidates, MPs, or expo- nents at any level – is restore that platform of stability. Only then can we move forward. And this process has begun. But if anyone thinks that there's a magic wand you can wave, and simply bring all dissenting opinions together and make them agree… no, it doesn't work like that. There is an irony here, as the PN is often criticised for trying to bring about instability (when in Opposition, anyway). Its MEPs have projected the image of a 'Mafia state' where there is no freedom of expression, and the rule of law has collapsed. First of all: isn't this a slight exaggeration? No, it's not an exaggeration. It's not just the Nationalist Party that is saying those things. Every European institution has said them, too. To me, this is a prob- lem that the Labour government has brought upon itself… I don't want to sound partisan, but that is how things are… As far as I'm concerned, you're entitled to be as partisan as you like. You are, after all, a Nationalist Party candidate… Still, I don't like having to talk in partisan terms. It bothers me, to be honest. But in this case, the Labour Party is talking as though Malta's international image de- pends on what the Nationalist Party says. That's obviously un- true. If the Labour government is criticised over Malta's rule of law situation… it's not coming just from the PN, or the EPP. It's coming from the European So- cialists. From the OECD. Trans- parency International. GRECO. These are not entities that take their orders from the National- ist Party. The reality is that the Labour government has a prob- lem. In the past, it used to shackle freedom through aggression. To- day, I would say that… yes, once again we have a problem of lib- erty, and democracy, being un- der threat. The Opposition has for years been asking for a Police Commissioner agreed to by both sides. Or for the appointments of the Attorney General, judges and magistrates, and so on… The Nationalist Party also spent 25 years in government, and took Malta into Europe without enacting any of the reforms you mention. So once again: how Author, journalist and Nationalist Party candidate for the European election, DIONE BORG argues that in different ways, Malta once again faces a political struggle against tyranny and oppression Liberty once again under Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt