The PN and History

Questions will be asked, in fact they have already been asked on many occasions, and analyses will be made following a defeat of that magnitude, as that is what happens in such circumstances. The P.N. is at a crossroads, we all know that. Better times are in the past for the P.N, and alas they are just memories that belong to a history that the party is so proud of.  History of its successes is important for the P.N., a pride predominant in the party's discourse, etched in stone, and repeated ad nauseam by the party on various occasions. Trust that partisan pride of past successes does works electorally, trust that it would rub onto the electorate is rife as it is counterproductive. Historical success and a glorious past didn't and will not work as far as electoral success goes, as the electorate is not interested in history, nor is the electorate interested in the P.N.'s past. Discourse that aspires is what people want, like those that the P.N. of past successes had. The electorate does not want flaunting about successes that no longer exist, as such flaunting is irrelevant for today's prevailing bread and butter issues, and issues such as civil liberties which the party has failed upon. We need a discourse that  aspires and inspires us as Maltese citizens, as did  Independence, "Work, Justice, and Liberty" after 16 years of a close-to-totalitarian situation under a Socialist government, and E.U. accession. We do not need a narrative about a glorious past, as there is not much to be said about what has already happened (nothing could be changed or be made better in what has already happened). Moreover, if there is too much emphasis on the past, the impression will be that the P.N. is resting on its laurels (past successes), and that it is not open to change and the betterment of peoples' quality of life. Unfortunately, the P.N. still seems to believe that past successes are what guarantee inevitable progress in the future, thus a sense of self-entitlement that is so much criticized. One cannot but also mention the fallacious nature of the motto that says that "what is right will always prevail". My take on this is that what is right needs to be fought for, through conviction and persuasion if it is to prevail. It is not history that people want or need, but ideas that relate to how people imagine themselves in the future. The P.N. policy documents were detailed, however people did not know what they say, because people are too impatient to read what is inaccessible to them to begin with. Even if one considers these documents as good for a party to have as a guideline (which they are), they do little to convince Tom, Dick and Harry. Policy documents should be an internal affair, to be worked upon, and to be amended when the need arises, but surely aren't what people are expected to read. The P.N. has catered for the educated alone, but forgotten all the rest when relying on policy documents to convince the electorate, and for this reason they were punished by a strong marketing strategy by the P.L., a strategy that has worked, as it spoke of better days to come, even if it could be deceitful and untrue. Honesty works, but so do peoples' dreams.