The Nationalist Party’s biggest concern is Frank Portelli
If there is a candidate for the PN leadership who has the guts to call a spade a spade, it is Frank Portelli. This is why he is now at the centre of an orchestrated political attack.
Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History here are two obvious reasons for these attacks. First of all, Frank Portelli was never part of the ‘klikka’. I am using the Maltese word ‘klikka’ because this is how political factions are referred to within the Nationalist Party. Not belonging to a clique, Portelli was excluded from obtaining support from the party. There is a second reason which is too obvious for those following the local political scene; Portelli is too ‘frank’ for the party. He has no problems denouncing any wrongdoing within the party. He did so in the past and is doing so again in this leadership contest. For this alone, the ‘klikka’ will never forgive him.
The expression ‘ad hominem’ has been applied in earnest against Frank Portelli, the major one being that he is too old. A nonsensical view because history has given us endless examples of oldies who – short of one being senile – have proven to be more than competent than the feckless modern species. Besides look at where having a young leader has landed the party. I do think that at the moment the Nationalist Party needs a mature person. The party needs a person with no strings attached who is open and is not interested in making alliances but in giving back the party its dignity. Frank Portelli has already succeeded in making the party administrative lot appear reckless.
After the recent marriage bill fiasco, Portelli was forthright. He had no problem highlighting the political incorrectness of those at the helm of the party. The politicians’ reaction was immediate and I found politically incorrect the statement issued by the Nationalist Party against Portelli’s views regarding gays and immigrants. This is not a question of whether one agrees or not with Portelli’s statements. A party cannot issue such statements against individuals who are contesting the leadership race. A candidate should be free to express his ideas irrespective of whether they are liked or not by the current administration. It is up to those who are going to vote in this election to uphold those ideas or not.
The real tragedy is that Simon Busuttil is going to remain a backbencher and thus will continue to control the party. He does not wish to leave the party. On this point, I am with Mario Galea. He should leave, as this will lead to a dangerous political situation. The Nationalist Party will end up finding itself in the same position as the Labour Party when Mintoff remained a member of parliament. Mintoff’s presence was neither beneficial to Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici nor to Alfred Sant. History teaches us that such presence does not allow for a fresh clean start for the new leader. The truth is that Busuttil is now desperately clutching to straws. With that same ‘klikka’ he failed to eliminate remaining on, he will bring the party down with him after having managed to strengthen the clique, making it more powerful. The clique in turn will be using Simon Busuttil’s presence in Parliament to create what Benjamin Franklin called a circle in a circle.
The Nationalist Party’s propaganda machine accuses Joseph Muscat of being corrupt when it is now becoming clear that, even at party level, things were not being run as they should have been. All candidates for the PN leadership are directly or indirectly admitting to this fact. The truth is that the Nationalist Party is now appearing as possibly even more corrupt than that of Joseph Muscat. At least, Muscat has had the intelligence to admit his weaknesses. The PN is so conceited that it thinks that it can get away with anything by simply pointing its finger at others without first looking at itself. All those who therefore wish to carry on defending Simon Busuttil, despite his despicable behaviour towards conservative voters within the party, are going to make the situation within the party more untenable.
The fact remains that the outgoing Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil denied MPs a free vote. Mario de Marco went a step further and apologized to the gay community for the Party’s past mistakes committed by Nationalist Catholic bigots! But then, Mario de Marco had no problem meeting a minister, who according to the Nationalist Party is corrupt, in order to assist the DB group to come out legally clean in its acquisition of public land at St George’s Bay. Yet, de Marco did not apologise to the Nationalist supporters for taking them to protest in Castile Square against corruption while he himself was having meetings with Konrad Mizzi inside Castille. I wish to remind readers that Frank Portelli was the only candidate for the leadership who questioned all this.
During the last election campaign, Kristina Chetcuti gave an interview where she referred to same-sex marriage. My problem with this interview is not her views on the topic but the way she spoke to the journalist. She declared: what we have started... By using the first person plural she was referring to herself and Simon Busuttil. The point I wish to make here is not related to the party’s position on same-sex marriage per se, but about Chetcuti. Chetcuti holds no position within the Party and has never done so. How, therefore, could she speak in the first person plural? Being the consort of the party leader did not give her any statutory position within the party. With her statement, she revealed the subterfuge manner in which the party leader has been subtly dictating policies within the party and wishes to continue to do so in the future. This goes to explain why the triumvirate and its cronies continue disregarding the Nationalist Party’s statute and have to date not appointed a commission to carry out an investigative analysis of the worst-ever electoral defeat. This is proof of how gutless the headship of the party has been so far.
Simon Busuttil has been described as a leader with principles. A man who would have us believe that he was going to eradicate corruption. I am starting to see more honesty in Joseph Muscat than in him. Simon Busuttil had no qualms accepting money from the DB or inviting shady building contractors to become super candidates in this last election.
The party also opened fire on Edwin Vassallo, who has always militated within the Nationalist Party and who, unlike Kristina Chetcuti, was always behind the PN through thick and thin. Yet, Vassallo has been branded as unprincipled and corrupt for standing up for the party’s ideals. It was only thanks to the fact that the rank and file was behind Edwin Vassallo, which has saved him from being crushed by the Nationalist Party political machine.
Those who think that Edwin Vassallo ruffled just a few feathers within the Nationalist party are not understanding the overall complex political picture. Vassallo succeeded in preventing Labour from taking political mileage on same-sex marriage and showed to all and sundry that the Nationalist Party went against the aspiration of the majority of the Nationalist voters. Moreover, surveys showed that the majority of the Maltese were against this sort of Marxist legislation. In the process, what Gonzi said in the 2013 election campaign has come true. The only mistake Gonzi made was to address his prophecy to the wrong leader.