Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1464183
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 APRIL 2022 9 INTERVIEW What's your own interpreta- tion for that, though? Why, in your experience, do you think those Nationalists are unhap- py? And why did those dis- gruntled Labourites not take the step of voting PN in this election? The reasons are many, and various. For instance: there are those traditionally-Labour voters, who – when they look at the Nationalist Party - see that there are still elements within it, who display a certain sentiment of 'elitism'. And this makes them uncomfortable, supporting that party. Conversely, there are those traditionally-Nationalist vot- ers who still refuse to ever vote Labour… but who remain un- convinced about their own par- ty: because it hasn't changed, or regenerated, enough. On both sides, then, there is an ever-growing number of people – which, at over 60,000, has never been higher, than in this election – who are simply not comfortable voting for any party at all. So I would say that both parties need to analyse, and deeply reflect on this re- sult. Both need to do an 'exam- ination of conscience'. Having said this, the National- ist Party does need to examine its conscience slightly more. Because it did not just 'lose' this election; it was defeated, it in a way that we haven't actual- ly seen since 1955. So the anal- ysis it needs to carry out, has to be far more in-depth than ever before. It can't just be a case of discussing 'values', and 'princi- ples', as usual. It is our entire attitude that needs to change. Because let's be honest: there must be something very wrong with our attitude, if so many people are abandoning the par- ty, and we are not attracting any new support. And even the way we address existing short- comings, or how we respond to complaints: we cannot carry on saying that, "Oh, it's because those people 'didn't under- stand' our message; or because they 'were bought'…" No! It's the other way round. We are the ones who 'don't un- derstand', when we say things like that. And that is why we keep failing to get the desired results. So if we are to truly to regenerate the party: our point of departure has to be 'humili- ty' […] This is something I learnt, even from my own experience; not just in politics (because I have limited political experi- ence, at the end of the day) but even just as a man with a fami- ly; as someone who has worked as a lawyer for 30 years; and as someone who spent all my life rubbing shoulders with many, many people, from all social strata, and walks of life. You can never generalise. I could never have the audaci- ty to judge others, myself. Be- cause if I am in politics… I am the one who'd be at fault, for not understanding others. Not the other way round… Let's go back to when you were elected PN leader, in 2017. From the very outset – even before – you were on the receiving end of criticism: for being perceived as a 'Labour Trojan Horse'; as well as for your connections with busi- nessmen involved in a Soho prostitution racket. Don't you think it was problematic, on your part, to contest that lead- ership election at all, under those circumstances? Didn't it limit your ability to criticise the government over corrup- tion, for instance? Let me put it this way: at the time, it would never have even entered my mind, in a thousand years, that anyone would pick on something like [the Soho connection] – with which there was absolutely nothing 'wrong', or 'illegal'; I was just doing my job, within the parameters of the law – and then spin it, in a way that was completely false, and dishonest, to cast a dark shadow over my reputation. No, that didn't even cross my mind, when I took the decision to contest for the leadership… But do you think that's the real reason why so many National- ist MPs opposed you? No, not at all. It wasn't be- cause of any 'service' I was supposed to have rendered to criminals; the real reason was because some people had a per- sonal interest in spinning it; in turning it around, into some- thing that it wasn't… and to keep persisting with that fabri- cation. But to answer your question more directly: yes, at the time it did work to my disadvantage. If you have exponents of your own party who are working to undermine you – instead of supporting and helping you, as leader – isn't it obviously going to be a disadvantage? But then, if you look at what actually emerged, from that point on, from all those ru- mours and allegations about me… Nothing! What actually happened, after all that, was that those people who said those things about me, had to either retract their words; or even make a declaration, in writing, that what they said was a lie. A lie… I take it you're referring spe- cifically to the spat between yourself and Jason Azzopar- di… No, I wasn't referring to that. I was talking only in generic terms… … nonetheless, that incident resulted in a patchy 'com- promise', hammered out by Bernard Grech, which only revealed the sheer extent of the fall-out within the party. Now, we've all seen the elec- tion result. Jason Azzopardi is no longer an MP (though he might regain his seat in the casual election). Don't you think, however, that the PN still needs voices like Jason Azzopardi: who was, at the end of the day, a Nationalist bulwark against Labour cor- ruption? Look: when we are still just a few days after an election, it is certainly not my place to dic- tate who should, or should not, be the people's representatives in parliament. It would arro- gant of me, or anyone else, to say: 'yes, that one should'; or 'no, that one shouldn't'… when the people have only just spo- ken! Surely, we should be lis- tening to what the people have decided; not taking that deci- sion ourselves… But doesn't their decision al- so mean that the people are 'irritated', by consistent an- ti-corruption voices like those of Jason Azzopardi… or Karol Aquilina? Or Adrian Delia: who also fought a battle against the cor- rupt [VHS] hospitals deal. Now: was there a single [Nationalist MP} who did not support me, in that battle? Was there any- one who said that I wasn't put- ting up a good fight? And was there a single one – all the way down to today - who claimed that I uttered a word against anyone else, that wasn't true? Was what I said, mere 'specula- tion'? Or did I base myself only on the facts? Ultimately, the people are ca- pable of seeing, and weighing up, these things... Coming back to your earlier point about 'elitism', though: isn't there some truth to the perception that the typical Maltese voter has come to see the anti-corruption battle it- self, as an 'elitist' cause? And if so, isn't that a dangerous path to take? I don't see it that way, myself. I speak out against corruption; and like you yourself said, I got elected from two districts. So no, I don't think he issue is whether politicians 'speak about corruption', or not. It's more about HOW they speak about corruption. It is one thing to take action to remove corruption; or to fight against corruption, and injustice. But it's another thing altogether if your tonality is always… 'extreme'. And it is the people – not me – who are making their own judgment, on such matters. And their judgment is not just 'clear'. It's as clear as crystal…