The first days of Alex Borg’s leadership of the Partit Nazzjonalista leave me with more questions than answers. He has stepped into a role that carries the weight of history—but also of failure, stagnation, and disillusionment. The PN isn’t just in opposition; it’s in crisis. And yet, if you listened only to Borg’s early speeches, you’d think the most pressing challenge facing Malta was rebuilding the “glory” of the party itself. 

This is where the problem begins. 

Borg has so far focused heavily on “the party.” Its structure. Its morale. Its past. His language is full of admiration for the PN’s historical victories, its “heroes,” its contributions to the country. That may be comforting to some within the party. But it’s not what the country needs. Malta doesn’t need a nostalgic PN. It needs a credible alternative to the current government. Borg seems more interested in reviving a brand than offering a vision. 

It’s not wrong for a new leader to stabilise the party he inherits. That’s normal. A fractured, demoralised party is no platform for national leadership. But the problem with Borg’s early leadership is that it stops there. He’s not using the party to build a project for Malta—he’s rebuilding the party as the project itself. In that sense, it’s not clear whether he sees the PN as a vehicle or a destination. If it’s the latter, he’s missed the point of political leadership entirely. 

A party is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to offer the public a better way forward—to translate values into policy, and policy into real change. That’s especially true for a party in opposition. If the PN is to be more than a relic, it needs to be in a permanent state of readiness to govern. Not just to oppose. Not just to commemorate itself. Borg’s early rhetoric avoids hard policy choices, complex realities, or clear ideological direction. There’s no talk of climate resilience, housing, tax justice, digital infrastructure, public health reform, or how to break Malta’s addiction to corrupt planning deals. There’s no signal of how he plans to regain the public trust—especially from younger generations, many of whom have no memory of the PN’s “glory days,” only its long decay. 

That silence is loud. 

“Un programma politico non si inventa, si vive.” – Luigi Sturzo 

Is it too much to expect vision this early on? No, it isn’t. The PN has been out of power for more than a decade. Anyone taking over now should arrive prepared—not just to lead a party, but to lead a country. Vision isn’t a five-year plan or a document you publish at election time. It’s a direction, a set of priorities, a set of truths you’re willing to stand by even when they’re unpopular. Borg hasn’t even hinted at one yet. And the vacuum is glaring. 

Instead, we’ve heard what amounts to internal messaging—calls for unity, loyalty, revival. That might resonate with the grassroots, but it does little for the rest of the country. Borg may be consolidating control, but to what end? If the goal is to win power, then he’ll need more than loyalty and internal discipline. He’ll need trust, and trust is built on credibility. The PN won’t get there unless it starts talking to people outside its own echo chamber. 

Even more worrying is Borg’s silence on the rule of law. Under Labour, Malta has seen deep institutional erosion—from the collapse of regulatory oversight to the stalling of investigations into political corruption. These are not abstract issues. They affect everything from business confidence to environmental degradation to our democratic dignity. The PN under previous leadership has found it hard to keep this issue alive. Worse still, it has chosen to either engage in petty squabbles with NGOs fighting the Rule of Law battles or worse still it chose to blame its woes on the fact that such battles were ‘distracting’ or ‘unpopular’. 

Borg so far seems uninterested—or unwilling—to confront it head-on. Has he already calculated that this battle is unwinnable? Or is he too afraid of alienating potential swing voters who see such talk as polarising or elitist? 

If he drops the rule of law agenda entirely, it will be more than a tactical retreat—it will be a moral failure. Malta needs political leaders willing to do more than win elections. It needs leaders who will fight for the future of the state itself. 

It’s not enough to invoke the past. The PN was once a party that brought Malta into the EU, strengthened the economy, and helped build modern infrastructure. But that was then. A new generation wants to know what comes next. How will Malta shift away from short-term profiteering and towards long-term sustainability? How will we build a fairer economy, a less polluted environment, and a digital system that works for citizens, not just government departments? These are not romantic questions. They’re real and they demand answers. 

So far, Borg has offered none. 

If this continues, the PN under his leadership will become a sort of political heritage NGO—committed to preserving its memory, but incapable of shaping the present. And in a country that desperately needs serious alternatives, that would be a tragedy. 

Borg still has time to prove otherwise. But the clock is ticking. If he wants to lead Malta, not just the PN, he’ll need to step outside the party walls, take a stance, and speak not just to his members, but to the country. 

Otherwise, he’s not building a future. He’s curating a museum. 

CAVEAT LECTOR: Let me be clear. My critique is that of a citizen who has no direct, vested interest in the PN. My interest is in having a credible opposition that is a valid alternative for government. Beyond that I also harbour a faint hope that the next government will champion the reforms needed to revert to a state of rule of law.