How a certain victory became a narrow escape for Alex Borg

Guest post by Glen Sultana

What unfolded in the Nationalist Party’s leadership race was not a story of Adrian Delia’s brilliance in bridging the gap but of Alex Borg’s implosion. The campaign could serve as a case study in how not to run for the leadership of a major political party and it will be an important lesson going forward for Borg's tenure at the helm of the party.

From the start, the contest was meant to be Borg’s coronation. Young, charismatic, free from political baggage, and with a commanding social media presence, he entered the race as the overwhelming favourite. Few imagined Delia, ousted after presiding over the PN’s worst electoral defeat, could ever stage a comeback. Yet within days, the crown that seemed firmly in Borg’s grasp was slipping away. By the end, Delia was back in contention.

Losing the Positioning Battle

Politics is often about defining the central word of the contest. Delia branded his campaign “Nirbħu” – winning. Borg went with “Issa hu l-Mument,” a slogan better suited to a student council race than a national leadership battle. Momentum in party politics flows to whoever can claim the mantle of winner. The irony was striking: the man who had led the PN to its most humiliating loss successfully branded himself as the candidate of victory.

Alex Borg looked Unprepared From the Start

Borg’s campaign looked improvised, thrown together with minimal planning or innovation. There was never a sense of momentum or a clear message beyond “I won Gozo”(a claim that itself is debatable). A leadership race is a rehearsal for a general election, an audition for Prime Minister, and a test of competence to lead. Borg’s effort suggested naivety and organisational weakness.

An Empty Policy Shelf

Campaign teams often blame poor communication for weak results. More often, the problem lies deeper. In this case, a lack of ideas. Borg offered little by way of policy or vision to anchor his candidacy. Candidates without a policy narrative have nothing to build momentum on. Joseph Muscat’s movement that got a 35,000-vote surplus was not crafted solely on slogans but on a substantive policy platform. Borg never offered his equivalent.

Debates that Exposed Weakness

Televised debates are pivotal. From Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 onwards, they have made or broken leaders. Borg’s campaign seemed to have resisted debates, an early sign of insecurity. When he finally faced Delia, his performance confirmed those doubts. Generic answers, risk-averse positioning, and shaky body language conveyed fragility rather than leadership. One line from Margaret Thatcher captures the lesson: “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

Trying to Please Everyone

Leadership isn’t about keeping everyone happy. As Tony Blair wrote, leadership means making choices, alienating some in order to rally the many. Borg’s campaign tried to be everything to everyone, all factions, all audiences, all messages. Leaders who try to please everyone end up standing for nothing. Ed Miliband in 2015 tried to balance left and centre internally, ended up with no clear vision, Labour collapsed.

Social Media Overload

At one point, Borg’s campaign was posting 8/9 times a day on one platform. That’s not strategy. That’s panic. Voters don’t remember your 9th post of the day. They remember the one message you hammer consistently. Karl Rove, a strategist for Bush had a famous quote, “Message: discipline. Message: discipline. Message: discipline. Message: discipline”.

The Art of Turning a Landslide Into a Cliffhanger

It wasn’t Delia’s brilliance that closed the gap in this race. It was Borg’s failures, from which he must learn. The clear path to victory he once held nearly imploded because of these mistakes: weak policy, poor preparation, and a candidate who never projected leadership when it mattered most.

For those, like us, who enjoy analysing campaigns, this one is a good lesson. The moment that should have been a clear coronation almost became the start of an autopsy.