Trump and the PN

This Amer­i­can elec­tion has at least con­firmed one pre­dic­tion; that the can­di­date who wins the State of Ohio gets to be pres­i­dent. In fact, af­ter win­ning this State, it was clear that Don­ald Trump was go­ing to be the next Amer­i­can pres­i­dent, even though th

Malta Independent - - NEWS -

Dr Si­mon Mer­cieca is se­nior lec­turer, Depart­ment of His­tory

Pos­si­bly, I am one of those who had no prob­lem in ex­press­ing my pro-Trump sym­pa­thies. Yet, in this blog I shall not speak about the fact that Trump has won be­cause he rep­re­sents the anti­estab­lish­ment. The rea­sons lie some­where else and I in­tend to tackle them some other time.

In Amer­ica, you need a bil­lion­aire to de­feat the sys­tem. Only bil­lion­aires can make it to the pres­i­dency. As cor­rectly stated in the Daily Mail, Amer­i­can elec­tions have brought about the down­fall of a num­ber of fam­ily dy­nas­ties in the USA. This is one of the pos­i­tive as­pects of the Amer­i­can sys­tem.

What I am in­ter­ested in is the im­pli­ca­tion of Trump’s elec­tion on lo­cal pol­i­tics. This elec­tion went to show how wrong and ill-ad­vised the Leader of the Op­po­si­tion is. He fears the neg­a­tive re­ac­tions of the me­dia. In­stead of fol­low­ing Trump’s model and lead­ing the me­dia, he is let­ting the me­dia guide him. For the past three years, the po­lit­i­cal strate­gists in Pi­età were bas­ing their mod­els on the Lib­eral Amer­i­can dik­tat. This model is now in to­tal dis­ar­ray.

For the last three years, those in­di­vid­u­als who were pock­et­ing thou­sands thought that be­ing lib­eral is the raci­est thing to oc­cur in lo­cal pol­i­tics. Gen­uine con­fes­sional politi­cians have been, and are con­tin­u­ally be­ing side-lined by the Tal-Pi­eta’ gu­rus. At the same time, pseudo-Catholics are be­ing pro­moted. This is go­ing to have dis­as­trous po­lit­i­cal con­se­quences when the next elec­tion cam­paign is an­nounced.

It is an open se­cret that the PN is des­per­ately seek­ing to please the lo­cal me­dia, in par­tic­u­lar a sec­tion of that me­dia that I am con­vinced has been re­ceiv­ing funds from abroad to pro­mul­gate a lib­eral and an­tiChris­tian agenda. The party that fought colo­nial­ism has be­come the great­est colo­nial lackey of all times.

The truth is that Labour too was pro-Clin­ton, and as stated in one of my pre­vi­ous blogs, Hil­lary Clin­ton pre­ferred Labour to the PN. The ob­vi­ous po­lit­i­cal strat­egy should have been ei­ther to keep your mouth shut or else for the PN to sup­port the Republicans. Now Labour has the field by brand­ing Si­mon Busut­til as the sup­porter of Clin­ton while at the same time Mus­cat is al­ready start­ing to equate him­self with Trump. In a tweet, he told his sup­port­ers that like Trump he is the anti-es­tab­lish­ment. I can­not un­der­stand how any re­spon­si­ble Prime Min­is­ter can be his own en­emy.

The team that Dr Busut­til has around him ex­plains why the PN is des­tined to lose the next elec­tion. It is now very clear that Labour is not wor­ried about Trump’s vic­tory. I agree with Mark A Sam­mut’s po­lit­i­cal anal­y­sis that Labour will grav­i­tate to­wards Trump. Mus­cat’s tweet con­firms this. In a few months, Malta will cease hear­ing about gay rights and queer agen­das. Th­ese are clearly, so far, not go­ing to be on Trump’s agenda. Labour needs Amer­i­can in­vest­ment. Without its sup­port, Labour ‘goons’ can­not make money out of the new Amer­i­can gen­er­at­ing dol­lar fac­tory.

When I was gath­er­ing the re­search ma­te­rial re­gard­ing the PN’s elec­toral de­feat, there was a lot of information about what type of party the Na­tion­al­ist elec­tor wanted or was ex­pect­ing from the new lead­er­ship. As I did with the rest of the re­port, I for­mu­lated th­ese ideas into a chap­ter, which I in­cluded in the re­port. This in-depth anal­y­sis ran to over 16,000 words.

When it was pre­sented to the Com­mis­sion, I had just be­come a fa­ther and there­fore had to ab­sent my­self from some meet­ings. When I re­turned, I was told that this chap­ter about ide­ol­ogy was not go­ing to be in­cluded in the re­port. How­ever, I was given per­mis­sion to present it separately as my own work. In fact, I in­tend to pub­lish this work soon.

Most of those who re­sponded to the Com­mis­sion’s ques­tion­naire did not want their party to em­brace the poli­cies, which had brought to vic­tory the Democrats in Amer­ica in 2012.

Obama’s elec­toral cam­paign was re­peated with suc­cess by Labour in 2013. But strat­egy should not be based on what hap­pened in 2012 in Amer­ica. The best strate­gist is he or she who can to some ex­tent fore­see the fu­ture.

The party had al­ready the Za­p­a­tero model to look at. Za­p­a­tero pushed the same poli­cies of Obama and both lost their elec­tions to the Right. For sure, the hard core Na­tion­al­ist elec­torate does not ap­pre­ci­ate the cur­rent PN ide­o­log­i­cal po­si­tion and this ex­plains the luke­warm cli­mate in the rank and file of the party. What I can state is that if the PN con­tin­ues with its lib­eral drive, it will re­duce it­self to 10% of the na­tional elec­toral vote. What has hap­pened in the USA is vin­di­cat­ing my anal­y­sis.

While my feel­ings about Mario de Marco are well known, when the re­port was pre­sented to the Party’s Ex­ec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, he was the one who made the most sane and cor­rect ob­ser­va­tion. He stated that the re­port lacked an ide­o­log­i­cal el­e­ment. This is true. The ide­o­log­i­cal part was there but the com­mis­sion felt that it should not be in­cluded – pre­sum­ably be­cause not all the mem­bers were in agree­ment with the con­clu­sions.

Yet, the idea prop­a­gated then was that this de­feat was due to the po­si­tion that the Na­tion­al­ist Party had taken to­wards di­vorce. This was not true. Many of those who replied to our ques­tion­naire showed their ap­pre­ci­a­tion to­wards Lawrence Gonzi and stated that they still voted for the PN de­spite all the in­jus­tices that they had ex­pe­ri­enced be­cause they ad­mired his in­tegrity. In fact, af­ter this de­feat, Gonzi with­drew from pol­i­tics, and the PN con­tin­ued to lose votes. In the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment elec­tions, in terms of raw votes, the PN failed to get the same num­ber of votes that it ob­tained in the 2013 Gen­eral Elec­tions. Had the PN suc­ceeded in keep­ing those votes, it would al­ready have shown that Labour was founder­ing a year af­ter its great vic­tory.

I bet that in the next elec­tion, the PN will still not get the same num­ber of votes that it got in 2013 when Gonzi was at the helm of the party. It will ob­tain less.

This is not a question of whether you like Con­ser­va­tive prin­ci­ples or not. This is an is­sue of po­lit­i­cal strate­gies and po­lit­i­cal sen­ti­ments. Con­ser­va­tivism has won in Amer­ica. The cur­rent ad­min­is­tra­tion in the PN is so blind that it did not en­vis­age that this could have hap­pened. In Malta there was a party that had th­ese win­ning val­ues at its core but it has lit­er­ally thrown them all to the four winds to em­brace demo­cratic Clin­ton’s val­ues of im­pe­ri­al­ism and po­lit­i­cal guile.

The truth is that, in th­ese last years, the PN has be­come more and more “Strick­land prone” in val­ues and at­ti­tudes without re­al­iz­ing that its his­tor­i­cal achieve­ments were ob­tained be­cause of its staunch op­po­si­tion to th­ese val­ues and at­ti­tudes.

The PN won in 1932 and af­ter WWII, de­spite hav­ing em­braced fas­cist ide­ol­ogy. It sur­vived the elec­tion while the to­tally pro-Bri­tish Strick­land Party was an­ni­hi­lated.

The rea­son for all this is to be found in the de­lib­er­a­tions made by Charles Bon­ham Carter, who was Malta’s Gov­er­nor in the 1930s. He ad­mit­ted that Bri­tish poli­cies failed in Malta be­cause the Bri­tish “lived an in­su­lated iso­lated ex­is­tence, quite de­tached from the Mal­tese to­wards whom they fre­quently be­haved in an in­de­fen­si­bly off­hand and ar­ro­gant man­ner – that silent ar­ro­gance pe­cu­liar to Bri­tons, which is even more ef­fec­tive than Prus­sian bul­ly­ing and bru­tal­ity in the hos­til­ity it arouses.”

In post In­de­pen­dence pe­riod, the Prus­sian bul­ly­ing was ex­er­cised by Mintoff on his op­po­nents. Bon­ham Carter’s anal­y­sis ex­plains why, de­spite all Mintoff’s de­fects and vi­o­lent tac­tics, still Labour never stooped so low with the elec­torate, be­cause Mintoff was in­tel­li­gent enough not to em­brace those Bri­tish at­ti­tudes so par­tic­u­lar to Strick­land and his fol­low­ers.

With sor­row, I no­tice that the “silent ar­ro­gance” that killed Bri­tish cul­ture in Malta has be­came the PN’s hall­mark and it is only when this trait is killed, can this party walk to vic­tory and hold its head high again.

The Malta In­de­pen­dent Mon­day 14 Novem­ber 2016

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malta

© PressReader. All rights reserved.