On Saturday, for the fourth consecutive time, the Nationalist Party voted in a leader who is a new, or almost new, face. It’s been a dozen years of repeated indictment, by voters, of the more experienced parliamentarians. On each occasion, there was hope the new leader marked the turning of a page; each time, the public polling soon did not match the PN’s hopes.
Will Alex Borg really turn the page this time? It’s too early to say. The general election is for Labour to lose, although Borg could inflict serious damage.
To do that, however, he has to keep in mind the difference between a leadership race and the general. There were four factors in the race he just won that won’t work the same way.
First, the race did not just produce a new PN leader. It also had a cathartic effect on the party members – an outpouring of unity and enthusiasm, a hormonal flood of dopamine and oxytocin, which they had not felt since the 2008 general election campaign.
The upsurge in optimism owed much, of course, to the conduct of Borg and his opponent, Adrian Delia. But there was more. The contest’s strict rules on debate and media interviews may have been dubious from a democratic viewpoint but they contributed to internal party cohesion.
In a previously fractious political party, a public pledge to unity became a form of theatre, like committing oneself to Jesus in the Deep South. On Facebook, posts were scrutinised for political chastity; abstinence from criticism was exhorted with evangelical fervour, as though it were hard liquor. It’s easy to be amused if you’re semi-detached; but, for the participants, it was real drama.
How come? The PN is the only major political party, so far, that has had to handle the consequences of social media. For a long time, it failed to keep message-discipline. (Labour returned to power when social media were taking off and has used its powers of patronage to buy off dissent and finance a troll army.) This leadership election saw PN members, finally, exercise self-restraint.
Of course the PN celebrates. But it won’t be joined by the voters it needs to win power. Unity is only a feel-good factor for the activists. Ordinary voters punish indiscipline, rather than cheer restraint. They keep an eye on disunity, not unity, to see if a political party is in a state to govern.
The second factor that shaped the leadership campaign is that many MPs took a backseat, while those who campaigned on behalf of a candidate were discreet. The close result is not due to a sharp split among members; on the contrary, it’s because the race, though keenly fought, did not see most MPs divide into rival camps.
For the general election, however, the subdued role of the MPs has to be reversed quickly. Borg’s strength as leader depends on the perceived individual reputations and strengths of the team around him.
The third factor is Borg’s rhetoric. He proclaims a new kind of politics and PN activists responded enthusiastically. What is really new, however, is not what he said but how he made them feel – pumped and raring to go.
What he said, in fact, could be described as a playlist of golden oldies.
From his opponent, Delia, he borrowed the 2017 pledge of a new politics. The expression, partit tan-nies (with the dual meaning of “the decent party” and “the people’s party”), originated in the Simon Busuttil years.
From Joseph Muscat, Borg borrowed the idea of a country that’s not blue or red (although this goes back even earlier) and in which youth can be a protagonist. From Lawrence Gonzi, he borrowed the slogan “Dan hu l-mument”, which was the title of the 2008 campaign song.
Shameless plagiarist? No, arguably a cunning fox. Knowing that what matters is not what you say but what people hear and feel, he stirred the memories of glory years, previous excitement and other people’s electoral victories. He cloaked himself in the associations of words buried deep in the hearts of his listeners.
In a general election, it shall be different. The listeners that matter won’t be attached to such slogans. And, if he repeats them, there will be a Labour machine ready to parade the sources.
Moreover, the path to the general election is long. Borg’s hallmark – disciplined repetition of talking points – will not work as well. It will grow stale.
In the leadership campaign, it was enough to pace the expectations of his voters. In the general, he will need to lead opinion and introduce substance.
Finally, there is Borg’s signature tune: that he wants the PN to be “close to ordinary people” (viċin in-nies). His audiences applauded heartily whenever he made this pledge. But it’s a curious promise – to carry out the most elementary step in politics.
It implies that the PN has been seriously detached from its basic purpose. Worse, it suggests the fundamental capillary network is missing. In a leadership election, you can promise things that are easier said than done. But then you risk being caught out in the general.
To point out these differences is not criticism of how Borg ran his leadership campaign. It’s simply a reminder of another golden oldie: you cannot win the next war by preparing for the last battle you won.
