|
Dr Michael Falzon has grown in stature within the Labour Party since his election to the post of deputy leader. Along with others he was an agent of change within the party. He now argues the MLP has to adapt to change and also be an agent of change 
Change has been the hallmark of the Labour Party since the 2003 election, but for deputy leader Michael Falzon, to adjourn with the times is not enough. He believes a political Party has to go one step further and promote change rather than simply be subject to it.
I meet Falzon at the traditional Valletta waterhole for lawyers, Café Cordina. This is my third interview with Falzon in three years and I sense an evolution in the mind of the man. Today his discourse is much less about the numerical workings of the electoral system and more about politics and vision.
Falzon says a lot of work is being done internally to prepare the Party for the electoral challenge in four year’s time even if criticism does abound that Labour is offering little by way of alternatives.
“Let’s not forget that the election is still four years away and over a one year period since the last election we were taken by storm. In May we had a change in leadership, after that we had to resolve the EU issue and then came the June European Parliament election. It was a hectic year.
“However, this summer we launched a document with suggestions for an economic regeneration plan. That document, which is still under discussion and has not yet been endorsed by the Party was a step forward in proposing alternatives. But I am not one who believes that it is enough for the Labour Party to be an alternative government. We have to be a better government and I am convinced that we can be a better government.”
Falzon disagrees that by doing nothing the Labour Party will win the next election.
“It is not in my nature to win by doing nothing. But it is also still a long way from the election and just like the shifts witnessed in public opinion between April 2003 and June 2004, there can be similar shifts in the years to come. Voting patterns have become more volatile,” he cautions.
“Change happens every day and a political party has to adapt to these social and economic changes. If the party does not adjourn to modern day needs it will fall behind but I also believe that a political party with a progressive vision needs to have the courage to promote change,” Falzon says. His words are peppered with references to past achievements by Labour governments in the social and economic fields. “Labour governments never feared change. They embraced it and instigated it. Just look at the great social strides the then-Labour administration took in the seventies. We have to build on our past achievements and move ahead.”
Despite all the hype on the Labour Party’s victory in the EP elections in June, when one considers percentages, the party retained the same electoral strength it had in April 2003: slightly more than 48 per cent. Is Falzon happy with the result?
“It was a positive result for the Party on two counts. In the local elections we obtained an absolute majority and for the first time the Labour Party has a global majority of local councillors throughout Malta and Gozo.
“In the case of the European Parliament election the fact is that the Labour Party obtained 21,000 more votes than the Nationalist Party. It is a substantial difference. If one were to translate the result into percentages, it is true that one may argue we remained where we were in 2003, but I believe that argument does not hold water because the same line of reasoning would lead us to say the PN has lost all those votes. It would also mean that all those who voted Alternattiva, were disgruntled Nationalists. Was that the case?”
Falzon insists the Labour Party has to build on the result. “It is definitely not a guarantee that Labour will win the next election,” he argues.
The Labour Party seems to have healed most of the wounds with its own supporters after the Mintoff clash in 1998 and the turmoil over the party’s shift in policy on the EU. The question remains whether it has managed to create inroads with middle of the road voters.
“It is a fact that every party’s hardcore block is reducing in number. People may agree with one party on one issue and with another party on other issues. They could vote for one party in a certain election and switch their vote in a different election. The number of people who will support a political party whatever it does are on the downturn. This means there are more middle-of-the-road voters or floating voters.
“There was a considerable degree of consolidation within the Labour Party even if there was a change in policy on EU membership. The party adjourned its policy and there must have been a degree of consolidation to have obtained that result. But there were also inroads into the section of society you describe as middle-of-the-road voters. I don’t think this was solely due to the change in policy on EU membership but the MLP has also been more positive in its outlook on certain issues; suffice to say we reached an agreement with Government on parliamentary pairing, there was also the appointment of a deputy speaker and we also appointed representatives on the electoral commission. These decisions left a positive impact.”
The discussion turns to the current economic situation, which Falzon describes as very worrisome. “I love this country and I sincerely believe this country deserves much better. I am not one to cheer because the situation is bad. There is a dearth of economic activity, less cash in hand and a sense that standards of living are declining. In all this it is the lower strata of society that are feeling the pinch.”
Labour’s southern hinterland is home to a high concentration of social problems. Unemployment rates in the Cottonera area are the highest and these coincide with lower admission rates of students from these areas to Junior College and University. Labour’s pro-worker discourse finds a welcoming ear in the south but what about the more affluent areas home to middle class people? Can the party represent the interest of both the working and middle class sectors of society?
“I will go one step further,” Falzon answers. “We have to be the party of the lower class, the middle class and also the upper class. The secret of success of any party is to be popular. As a socialist party I believe we have a bigger obligation towards the lower classes. Obviously in a society where the middle class is a dominant factor, one cannot burden that strata of society; it keeps the economy ticking with its spending power. We should have no problem communicating with the middle class because its growth is primarily due to various initiatives taken by the Labour government in the early seventies.
“But the Party has to have the upper classes on its side as well. In today’s economic reality where governments are increasingly having a less influential role as players and adopting a more regulatory role instead, no government can function properly if it has the primary economic agents at loggerheads with it.
“We have to defend the working classes, and that is our main obligation, but we must also ensure the right environment for employers and entrepreneurs to invest and create wealth. We have to be a progressive party and adjourn with time. Traditionally there might have been a blockage to communicate with the business and self employed classes but the Party is ready to build bridges with everybody.”
Looking back at the tumultuous events in 1998, I wonder what lesson was learned by the Labour Party.
“Every day in politics teaches you something new. But the major lesson to be learned from that period is the need to respect collective decisions,” Falzon says with conviction. He insists the Party will not be raising expectations ahead of the next election by promising things that would be impossible to achieve because of the financial situation. “There are things that cannot be promised because they cost money and the current situation does not permit them. But there are numerous other things that can be achieved and all they require is political will.”
I briefly touch on the electoral system, which has not been too kind to the Labour Party given the way electoral districts are drawn up.
“The electoral system can be improved and there needs to be a revision of the electoral districts. But on a purely personal basis I believe there are better systems that can bring parliamentary representation closer to the popular vote. As a Party we can propose a system that could reduce the influence of the districts and ensure a stricter proportionality between the electoral result and parliamentary seats, but this has to be balanced with safeguards for governability,” Falzon says.
As deputy leader for Party affairs Falzon is responsible for what happens within Party structures. On what I describe as an anachronistic and outdated Vigilance and Disciplinary Board, Falzon says there is no internal discussion at present on reforming this structure. “I think it can be improved like many other things,” he says.
As regards vetting of local council candidates, Falzon agrees there is the need for more scrutiny. “Last year we embarked on closer scrutiny of our candidates, but more still needs to be done. Let’s also keep in mind that these are volunteers.”
Before we part I ask Falzon whether he will be contesting the next election as a candidate. He smiles: “I though that was an open secret.”
I insist for a clearer answer. Falzon says if he wanted to, he could have won a parliamentary seat in the previous elections. “Last year somebody stood up in the general conference and proposed me. But at the time I was co-ordinating the Party’s electoral office and decided to put the Party’s interests before my own. This time the situation is different. Without closing any doors I think that in the next election I could give my contribution to the Party in a different way.”
I’ll take it that Falzon will have his name on the ballot in four year’s time and with that we part.
|
