Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1405706
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 29 AUGUST 2021 INTERVIEW 'work in progress' that question. As we speak, we are working on a new political vision for the party; and I am convinced that, in the coming weeks, Bernard Grech will an- nounce a new direction that will take into consideration, not just the environment, but a host of other issues as well… I can't help but note, howev- er, that your answers are all framed in the future tense. You are talking about all the things the Nationalist party 'will do'. But an Opposition party is also expected to speak out about things happening in the here and now… You will understand, howev- er, that I've only been in this role for less than a month... True; but Bernard Grech has been PN leader for almost a year now. And to mention but one (admittedly minor) exam- ple: on cannabis reform, he told us that the party would come up with its own propos- als 'within days'. That was last May. Why is it taking so long, for an Opposition party to for- mulate basic policies on na- tional issues? Bear in mind that, for all the year that Bernard Grech has been leader, the PN was faced with those internal issues I mentioned earlier. So first and foremost, I would argue that it was actually his duty, at that time, to pay more attention to the party's internal affairs. There were also processes that had to be undertaken; even with regard to the structures of the party. But yes, the time has now come to present our vision. And when I say 'in the future'… I'm not talking about some dis- tant future, many years from now. I really do mean, 'in the coming weeks'… Besides: I don't think it's en- tirely fair to say that the PN has not come up with any propos- als at all. In the last few months alone, we have taken stands on a wide variety of issues: on the situation in prison, for in- stance; on energy; on climate change; on education… Traditionally, the PN has al- ways prided itself on being a 'broad church'. But surely there is a limit to how many different – and often conflict- ing – opinions can co-exist within it. Wouldn't you agree, for instance, that the PN is of- ten incapable of taking certain stands, precisely because of internal (often ideological) disagreements? Obviously, as you say, the PN is home to a wide variety of different – and yes, even con- flicting - opinions. And it is true that, in the past, the party has sometimes held back from discussing certain issues – es- pecially where civil liberties were concerned. But the reality is that the party must first have its own, internal discussions on such matters, before it can come up with a position of its own. I am not saying, of course, that whoever disagrees with that position, will have no fur- ther place in the party. But the discussion has to take place in- ternally, before we can advance to the level of national policy… Civil liberties are a good ex- ample. Labour also had its own internal qualms about issues such as, for instance, gay marriage. Yet it somehow managed to overcame those ideological barriers. The PN, however, doesn't seem to have crossed that threshold yet. Don't you think the time has come to reinvent the PN as a more modern, issues-driv- en, evidence-based political force… as has happened with other conservative parties all over Europe? I won't talk too much about the past; because I am obvious- ly now here to move forward. That is my role, now that I'm secretary-general. What I'll say, however, is that I think that the PN can no longer carry on avoiding certain issues. If a topic is being discussed in the country, it cannot be that the Opposition party simply turns its head the other way, and pre- tend nothing has happening. It has to discuss those issues; reach its own position, within its internal structures… and then, discuss and defend its po- sition on a national level. But that's not really happen- ing, is it? And besides, you said it yourself: 'why should the electorate vote PN, and not Labour?' What answer would you give a voter to that, today: i.e., before this 'new political vision' is even announced? I would say there are many and various reasons to vote for the Nationalist Party today. First of all – and I'm not saying this as a cliché – when Bernard Grech spent such a long time arguing that 'the individual should be placed at the centre of all his policies': what does it actually mean? That the com- mon good must come first in all our policies and decisions…. … sorry to interrupt, but that does sound a little cliché. Al- fred Sant, for instance, used to say 'Ic-Cittadin L-Ewwel'. What's the difference? OK, it's true that political slo- gans 'come and go'. But they're not necessarily 'meaningless'. The issue of Marsaskala is a classic case in point. What is our policy? That if a project – any project – is to be under- taken there: we must first ask ourselves, in whose interest is this project being carried out? I would like to think it's in the interest of the residents of the locality, and its surroundings. So we have to first talk to those people, and arrive at a conclu- sion based on what they would like to see in their own locality. And I mention this example, as an indication of what I feel the Nationalist Party should be – and is – doing with regard to all issues. Instead of having four people in a room, deciding on this, that or the other project… we have to identify the people who will be affected, sit down with them, and collectively find a way forward… Earlier, you mentioned that 'other actors' stepped in to fill the political void. I presume that's a reference to certain NGOs which – apart from tak- ing over some aspects of the Opposition's role – are also highly critical of the so-called 'Adrian Delia' faction'. Do you share the concern, felt by many Nationalists, that this tug-of-war threatens to split the PN into two? No. I think that, where NGOs and civil society are concerned, they have their own precepts of what constitutes 'good govern- ance'; and I don't think anyone can deny that the Nationalist Party shares those basic pre- cepts completely. There are, naturally, internal divergences of opinion when it comes to how, exactly, this common aim – this shared belief in the need for a political change – can ac- tually be achieved… But the existence of different opinions - and even different factions – does not add up to a 'split within the party'. Ed- die Fenech Adami also had to contend with different factions, when he became Prime Min- ister in 1987. There were also people, within the party, who had very different opinions from his own. It doesn't mean, however, that he wasn't also capable of bridg- ing that divide. He still man- aged to unite the party, and move it forward… But that's what I've been ask- ing all along: Eddie Fenech Adami managed to do all that, in the past. Why isn't Bernard Grech succeeding today? It's a work in progress. A con- tinual process. And you cer- tainly can't say that Bernard Grech 'isn't capable' of suc- ceeding… when the process it- self is still underway. But if we are to succeed, we shall also have to be careful not to allow ourselves to be dis- tracted from our mission. To return to your earlier question, about why everything is framed in the future tense… we're ac- tually agreeing here. As sec- retary-general, it is my role to insist that the PN's political vi- sion has to come out today, not tomorrow. This doesn't mean that there is no room for different opin- ions; but we cannot allow those opinions to keeping getting in the way of the one thing we need to focus on most: a for- ward-looking political vision, that offers the Maltese people a better standard of living.