Politics is often about making difficult choices. Sometimes it is about choosing between what is politically expedient and what is institutionally correct. The recent controversy surrounding the Nationalist Party’s handling of Alex Borg’s district selection following the General Election and subsequent casual elections brings this dilemma sharply into focus.

Let me state from the outset that I fully understand, and indeed agree with, the argument that Alex Borg should have retained the Thirteenth District. As a Gozitan politician with deep roots in Gozo, it makes political, electoral and practical sense for him to continue representing the district most closely associated with his political identity. Few would seriously argue otherwise.

The issue is not the outcome. The issue is the process.

What raises eyebrows is the apparent pride with which some PN officials claimed they had found a “loophole” in the party statute to make this outcome possible. That statement, in itself, should concern anyone who believes in sound governance and strong institutions.

A statute is not merely a technical document. It is the constitutional backbone of an organisation. It establishes the rules of engagement, safeguards transparency, and ensures that decisions are taken in accordance with agreed procedures rather than personal preferences. When political leaders publicly celebrate finding loopholes in their own rules, they risk sending the wrong message: that rules are there to be circumvented rather than respected.

This episode exposes two problems that are separate but equally important.

The first concerns the statute itself. If the rules produced an outcome clearly at odds with political reality, the problem may lie in the way the statute was drafted. Good governance requires regulations that are sufficiently robust to address foreseeable circumstances. If a political party finds itself scrambling to identify loopholes to achieve what most people regard as common sense, then perhaps the original drafters failed to anticipate future developments.

Statutes should be designed with sufficient foresight to accommodate changing political realities without forcing organisations into legal gymnastics whenever an unexpected situation arises.

However, the second issue is even more significant.

If the Opposition Leader and the party leadership genuinely believed that the statute produced an undesirable result, they had a perfectly legitimate and democratic solution available to them. They could have convened an extraordinary meeting of the General Council or of the body with authority to amend the statute. They could have openly presented their arguments, explained why the rule no longer reflected political realities, and sought the approval of the party’s members and delegates.

Such an approach would have demonstrated transparency, accountability and respect for the party’s internal democratic structures.

Instead, choosing to rely on a loophole creates the impression that procedures are obstacles to be overcome rather than principles to be upheld.

Political parties are often quick to criticise governments for exploiting legal grey areas, stretching interpretations of regulations or seeking technical ways around established rules. Those criticisms lose credibility when parties appear willing to adopt similar methods within their own organisations.

The public expects political leaders to demonstrate the values they wish to bring into government. If a party seeks to govern a country, it must first demonstrate that it can govern itself in accordance with the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

This is why the controversy matters.

It is not about Alex Borg. It is not about Gozo. It is not even about which district a particular politician ultimately represents.

It is about political culture.

A mature political organisation does not boast about finding loopholes. It identifies shortcomings in its rules, amends them openly and democratically, and ensures that future decisions are taken within a clear and transparent framework.

Good governance is not tested when rules are convenient. It is tested when rules become inconvenient.

In this case, the politically sensible outcome may well have been achieved. Yet the route chosen to get there leaves unanswered important questions about institutional maturity, foresight, and respect for internal governance.

For a party aspiring to form the next government, those questions deserve serious reflection.