Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1276949
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 AUGUST 2020 INTERVIEW Really? Do you envisage Adri- an Delia remaining a PN mem- ber, even if he loses the lead- ership election? Yes: I believe he still has a con- tribution to make. As an MP, he started a number of important initiatives that I think he should continue: like the fight against the Vitals hospital concession in court, for instance… This brings us to a small iro- ny. It seems as though Adrian Delia is the only voice within the Opposition to be actually opposing the current govern- ment. The majority of the PN parliamentary group, on the other hand, seems to be more focused on opposing Adrian Delia. Isn't this a problem for the credibility of the anti-Delia faction? I think that is dictated by the specific circumstances of the moment. Looking back over the past three years, you will find that all of the parliamenta- ry group was involved in scru- tinizing the government, and doing its job as a parliamentary opposition. In fact, one of the criticisms directed at individual MPs – in- cluding those who have a rep- utation for "refusing to work with Delia" - was that they pre- sented more private members bills in parliament than the Op- position could realistically fo- cus on, given its Parliamentary time-limits. So you can't really say that the parliamentary group has not been doing its job. But the present circumstances are what they are; ever since the vote of confidence last month, the focus has shifted onto the party leadership. And to be honest, this was inevitable. Be- fore we reach a stage where the Nationalist Party is once again truly reunited, and fully healed from its present wounds… it is useless to talk about presenting ourselves as a credible alterna- tive government. Delia's supporters would ar- gue, however, that these 'wounds' you refer to were ac- tually inflicted by the so-called 'rebels' who refused to ever accept Adrian Delia as the le- gitimately elected party lead- er. Don't they have a point? First of all, I don't really agree with the term 'rebels'; or that the 19 MPs who have lost con- fidence in Adrian Delia consti- tute some kind of 'rebel faction'. If there were two or three MPs, perhaps you could call it a re- bel faction. But when you have two-thirds of the parliamentary group, and a majority of both the Executive Committee and the General Council… that's not a 'rebellion'; that's actually the Party itself deciding to go for a new leadership election. At this point, I would say that the real 'rebels' are those who are still opposing the change that the Party, through its three highest organs, is asking for. That's an interesting point, be- cause the issue at stake here is ultimately a question of who re- ally 'owns' the Nationalist Par- ty. The anti-Delia faction has been accused of harbouring a sense of 'entitlement' over the party… it is in fact often de- scribed as 'the party establish- ment'; and Delia himself was arguably elected to reclaim the party from a 'clique' that had usurped it. Isn't there some truth to this? Let's start by acknowledging a few facts. I myself acknowledge that, from the moment Adrian Delia became PN leader in 2017, there were MPs who were either sceptical or unconvinced. But this happens after every leader- ship contest. The first challenge of any newly elected party leader is always to convince the rest of the party that they can also be part of the team. Adrian Delia's misfortune, however – or should I say, his shortcoming – is that over time, rather than trying to win over his detractors within the party, he chose to exclude them… And yet, in his latest Cabinet reshuffle Adœœrian Delia gave important posts to even his most outspoken critics: such as Jason Azzopardi, who was made Shadow Justice Minis- ter… Yes, that is true. But I think that there were people who could have been more involved in the project; and who expected some sort of protection from attacks, on social media, by party mem- bers who were close to the lead- er. I would have expected the party leader to at least try and calm the situation down, with a view to bringing everyone in the fold. After all, a party leader has to act a little like a 'father-figure': he shouldn't be rousing his own supporters against other mem- bers of the same party… But to come back to your ques- tion about the so-called 'clique' or 'establishment': these were key phrases the Labour propa- ganda machine used to use to describe the Nationalist Party; and unfortunately, Adrian Delia made them a key theme of his campaign. They are no longer words used by Labour to deni- grate the PN; they are now words used by the PN, against the PN. That, too, made it very diffi- cult for Adrian Delia to have any prospect of rapprochement with other members of the party. But the strange thing is that, if you look at the individuals who make up the 19 MPs who have lost confidence in him… most of them are actually in their first legislature in parliament. The vast majority have only been MPs since 2013; they have never been part of any former Nation- alist administration of govern- ment. By way of contrast, the people have been longest in Parliament – some of them going back not just to the days of Lawrence Gonzi, but even of Eddie Fenech Adami – are part of the 10 MPs who still support Adrian Delia. I do not mean that they do not still have a valid input to give, but it is highly ironic that the MPs who have lost confidence in Delia are described as 'the par- ty establishment'… or even as a 'clique'. You cannot describe two-thirds of the parliamentary group, and 60% of the executive, and a majority of the general council, as a 'clique'. However you describe the sit- uation, it remains a fact that the Nationalist Party appears to be irremediably divided… and the chances are that it will remain divided, even if Delia is successfully replaced. So how would changing the leader, as an end in itself, resolve the problem? The problem today is that, as repeatedly shown by polls and surveys – and especially by the trust ratings of the party leader - we are clearly not getting an- ywhere. Last year, we lost the local council elections by 47,000 votes. Surveys have since shown that we have continued to lose support... even after the events of last November, when the Muscat administration col- lapsed in a series of corruption scandals; even when the Office of the Prime Minister was prac- tically implicated in the murder of a journalist. Despite all this, the National- ist Party failed to regain even a single percentage point. So the results are what they are: we know that, without making this change, we will end up going in- to an election asking ourselves whether we will lose by 40, 50, 60 or 70,000 votes. We can't allow that to happen. A party exists to win elections. That is the only way it can im- plement its policies. So if you know that, with the current set- up, you have no chance of even starting to compete… you have to change. But would a change in leader, on its own, be enough to turn the situation around for the PN? And do you really think that Bernard Grech has what it takes to succeed? I believe that, at the moment, Bernard Grech is the only can- didate with any real prospect of bringing the party back togeth- er: not just by re-uniting the members of the General Coun- cil, who are now divided; nor just the tesserati, who mightal- so be split; but by bringing back the 135,000 voters who voted PN at the last election… and, more importantly, the 160,000 voters we would need to win the next election. I believe that Bernard Grech can do this; but he can't do it alone. He needs a team around him, who can attract different types of voters – even those who might not be much attuned to him, at the moment. It won't be easy, naturally; but if he builds up the right team… yes, I do believe he can succeed.