When Roberta Metsola announced that she would not be entering the national scene, she closed the door on what many saw as a potential turning point for her personal career and national politics. For many, the decision was disappointing yet unsurprising, but for others, it seemed to lend weight to much of the criticism that followed her throughout her rise in EU politics.

A European Interest, But at What Cost?

Metsola’s ascent to the presidency of the EU parliament was indeed a moment of great pride as she marked the highest political post ever held by a Maltese official in an EU institution. Yet the role came with trade-offs. As President, she was required to maintain institutional neutrality, limiting her ability to advocate for Malta’s specific interests. This led to one of the most enduring criticisms of Metsola, that she consistently prioritises the European agenda over Malta’s national interest.

Now, with the Nationalist Party facing an existential leadership vacuum, many hoped she would pivot back to Malta and bring her stature, experience, and credibility at national level to the domestic political scene in desperate need of revitalised opposition. However, last week, Metsola confirmed she will not be putting her name forward, insisting she is has a duty to remain in her role as European Parliament President. This was the moment to pivot from European diplomacy to national responsibility. Her refusal to step up suggests that, once again, the calculus remains European-first, Malta-second.

Dodging the Heat of Local Politics

Metsola is today regarded as a skilful communicator as she speaks the language of European diplomacy fluently. But critics argue that her effectiveness is partly a product of the environment she operates in. One that is structured, distant, and far more controlled than the chaotic realities of local politics.

Unlike the often scripted world of European institutional politics, domestic leadership demands constant exposure to unfiltered criticism, unpredictable media, and deep grassroots engagement. Metsola’s decision to skip debates during the 2024 MEP campaign was a case in point, and critics perceived it as a strategic avoidance of scrutiny. Her refusal to enter the PN leadership race now seems like a continuation of that same instinct to avoid the often personal, highly scrutinised life of Maltese politics.

Personal Timing

One of the more persistent critiques of Metsola’s political trajectory is that it appears highly choreographed around personal opportunity. Her critics argue that decisions have often been timed for strategic gain rather than public service. Her elevation to EP President, while symbolically important for Malta, also meant losing a national vote in a key EU institution, something that came at a cost to Malta’s lobbying strength on European policy files.

If Metsola returns to Malta two years from now, when conditions are more favourable, this week’s refusal will appear less like a decision grounded in duty and more like a tactical move driven by personal timing.

Executive Role Avoidance

There’s a fundamental difference between representing a nation or an institution in an ambassadorial role and leading in an executive capacity. The European Parliament presidency is prestigious, but it is not an executive office. It involves representation, mediation, and visibility, but not governance, policy implementation, or the kind of decision-making that comes with the most scrutinised aspect of political leadership.

To lead the PN would have meant confronting internal divisions, rebuilding organisational structures, and taking clear policy positions on issues that divide the electorate. It would have involved risk, criticism, and possible failure. Metsola’s decision to stay away may be seen as an unwillingness to make that leap. For some, it raises uncomfortable questions about her appetite for executive leadership and her resilience under pressure.

In politics, perception is everything. For her critics, this is a confirmation of everything they have long claimed. That she is more comfortable abroad than at home, more ambassador than leader, more European than Maltese. By staying in Brussels, Metsola may have misread not just the moment, but the meaning of leadership itself.