Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/838705
14 Dr Fenech, you recently wrote an opinion piece arguing that the Nationalist Party has to 'rediscover' its true identity. But there doesn't seem to be much consensus regarding what that identity is supposed to be. What exactly do you think the Nationalist Party is today... and what do you think it should be? I think, you asked me the ques- tion: 'what has the Nationalist Party always stood for', the answer is pretty clear... that is why I joined the PN in the first place. I joined the PN out of choice; not necessar- ily because my family was always Nationalist. In fact I come from a very mixed background. But I joined the Nationalist Party because, at the time, I was inspired by Eddie Fenech Adami in par- ticular: whom I saw to be a great Christian Democratic leader. I am a Christian, and therefore I was inspired to offer my services to the country with the party I felt really represented my values. I be- lieve the PN has been a force for change for the past 25 years. And therefore it hurts me to hear com- ments to the effect of: 'If you're a Christian Democrat, you're trying to throw us back into the Middle Ages'. I don't think the PN in govern- ment did that; on the contrary, the Nationalist Party was always a force for change. It was a force that brought us into the EU. It ac- tually gave us most of the liberties we have today. Clearly, Christian Democracy is about looking for- wards, not backwards. However, yes, at this juncture, after two elec- toral defeats... the Nationalist Par- ty needs a moment of reflection, rather than rushing headlong into any decisions. It needs to see what it really stands for; what makes it different. Because, unfortunately, we can't have a democracy if both parties stand for the same things. Why not have only one party, and become a Chinese-style system? So, no, I don't think the PN should just copy the Labour Party. All that would mean is that people would keep voting Labour; they will say, 'the original is always better than the copy'... so the PN needs to have its own identity. You talk of your involvement with the PN very firmly in the past tense. Was your decision to resign from the PN final and irrevocable? There are some people who seem to think that, because I'm writing articles, it means that I aspire to contest the leadership election. I certainly don't. One reason I have decided to move on is what I have seen happening in the past four years. By nature, I am a loyal per- son: if I'm in something, I will stick to it... even if I'm not happy with everything. I will not disturb the is- sue if I am part of the team. However, I think the PN at this moment needs people to air their views. If I am part of the parlia- mentary group, I can air my views within that group... but then, out- side that forum, I'd have to shut up. I disagree with that. I think it's the moment we should all speak out. I would love to see the PN become a force for change in this country. I remain at heart a Na- tionalist. I did not abandon the PN; I remained active till the very last day. I attended mass meetings till the very last day. I remain desirous to see the PN in government... but unfortunate- ly, people opted otherwise. Clearly, the result shows that we need to have a serious discussion about the party. I would love to see the PN picking up the pieces, becoming strong again, and once again chal- lenging to become a government. If people opt otherwise, that's their choice in a democracy. But let's have a debate... because unless we really discuss the issues, the PN will just gear up for another elec- tion; possibly make the same mis- takes; and not realise that it is not actually in touch with what voters would really like to see from it. At the same time, however, you are talking about 'going back to roots'. That suggests a backward, rather than forward-looking direction. Is returning to the Christian Democrat template really such a good idea, given that so many of the individual issues – divorce, gay rights, etc – are now more or less settled? I am not talking about 'reversing' things like the divorce decision. Divorce was introduced by means of a referendum, which must be respected. But it doesn't mean we should just rush into every change without really thinking of the con- sequences. When I talk about the PN going back to its Christian Democratic roots, it's not about reversing decisions; it's about what we really want to instil in society. I still believe in the values of solidar- ity, social justice, the principles of Christian ethics, in having param- eters within which to operate and order society. These are important issues which need to be at the centre of the decision-making process... and not merely used electorally for convenience, and then put aside when in power. Besides, when I talk about values, it doesn't mean a political party doesn't evolve. Clearly, the PN has to evolve: no party can remain stuck in the past. But values do not 'fossilise' a party. A party must remain relevant to society; it must react to society... but also lead society. I do not believe in politics based solely on surveys. In that case, we could simply do away with politi- cians altogether. All we'd need is a computer: everyone could click what he wants on an online sur- vey, and then the computer would issue a bill according to what peo- ple have voted. Then the President can sign it, if we want a signature on the document. But that's not politics. Politics is also about con- viction; it's about telling the people why they need to change... Earlier you mentioned 'mistakes' made by the PN. Do these mistakes include, perhaps, a lack of conviction on the PN's part? Let me put it this way: Joseph Muscat was so successful because he brought change to the Labour Party; he moved it from the Alfred Sant era, and with his convictions moved the party in a direction. This is what we need in this coun- try: leaders, and not merely people who base themselves on what sur- veys say. That, to me, is a disser- vice to society. Unfortunately, surveys are heav- ily influenced by talk. Let me give you a practical example from my time as minister of finance. Frank- ly, even though there was a global crisis, the economy was doing quite well. What did the Labour party pick on? Inflation. It said the cost of living was something the people couldn't keep up with. It repeated that sufficient times, and as a result our surveys always used to say: 'the PN is good at creat- ing jobs, but horrible in tackling inflation.' Because in reality, sur- veys are influenced by the media; by what is being emphasised... and they do not always objective- ly gather the information on the ground. That is why, as the Nationalist Party, I think we need to go closer to the people on the ground. That is critical; our system remains based on that. People in their homes will give you a different perspective from what you might be thinking, possibly because of whatever strategy team you may have around you. We must listen to their concerns, their priorities, what their values are; what sort of future they want for their children. Unless we capture that, we can never be a party which gives rel- evant answers to those questions. It sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me, however. On one level you talk about rediscovering the party's forgotten roots... on another, you stress the need for the Nationalist Party to become relevant to what is, ultimately, a changing society. Separately, you give Joseph Muscat as an example of leadership: but Muscat did not 'go back to Labour's roots'; on the contrary, he remodelled the PL almost on the same lines as the PN... I don't see it as a contradiction. The reality is that Joseph Muscat has the power of conviction. He may be questioned on issues; but this election shows he was still trusted. The way he handled the Panama papers issue, for instance. I think it was scandalous, person- ally. But he managed to convince people that it was the right way to do it... sufficiently for them to give him a very strong majority. Yet it was so obvious: so many independent commentators were saying that Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri should not be there, after what they'd done. But Muscat kept repeating the mes- sage that there was an inquiry go- ing on... that we should wait for the inquiry's conclusions... and people just accepted it. He prob- ably took a bit of a gamble when he said that he would resign if the inquiry found anything wrong. But it paid off: people said, 'If he's so clear about that, he must be inno- cent'. Obviously, we shall have to wait and see. But clearly, that was an element of conviction. So in Joseph Mus- cat, the Labour Party has found a person who is able to sell change. He even managed to move a lot of conservative people within the PL – because the PL has its strong Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 18 JUNE 2017 In Joseph Muscat, the Labour Party has found a person who is able to sell change. [...] He has the power of conviction, which is what the Nationalist Party also needs SELLING CHANGE The power of convic A party must remain relevant to society; it must react to society... but also lead society. I do not believe in politics based solely on surveys LEADERSHIP