I would be saying nothing new if I had to say that Labour should choose its next leader wisely. Nor would I be helping the delegates any further had I simply reiterated again the qualities and values that Labour’s next leader should possess. These arguments will be put forward ad nauseam in the next couple of weeks.
Instead, I wish to take a different perspective. A negative approach perhaps, but in my humble opinion, one that requires serious evaluation. I intend to elaborate on what a new Labour leader should not be, or should not be perceived as having, as it is my belief that any hopeful would wish such truths to remain concealed.
First and foremost delegates should ponder on the issue of the European Union and European values. The Nationalist Party will do its utmost to revive this issue even five years down the line. Let’s not forget that the financial bonanza resulting form Malta’s financial package – the much mentioned €855 million – will start kicking in during this legislature. Realistically these will leave a good overall impact both from an economical level and perhaps more on an infrastructural one. Therefore the hype in five years’ time will again be on the EU issue. In this respect Labour should not choose a leader whose European credentials are somehow tainted and doubted. Past shadows on this issue will be in play come next election, and in the face of deemed and real benefits resulting from membership, a perceived euro-sceptic leader is simply a non-starter.
Secondly it’s a question of freshness, change and innovation. Labour has been in opposition for 20 whole years. It’s a very long time indeed. With this in mind I would be the first not to vote for any candidate, who, despite his/her loyal service to the Party, was a key player in past electoral defeats. The maxim that failure is an orphan does not hold water here. All leadership hopefuls whose past is associated with electoral failures, including the very last, should shoulder responsibility and think in the interest of the Party before submitting their candidature. Past political baggage is too heavy to carry in the face of an increasingly discerning electorate who yearns constantly for innovative ideas. The last election should indeed serve as an eye opening lesson of how the electorate probably wanted the party but not its leader. A leader who is unable to transmit and demonstrate a sense of freshness, is unworthy of a leader of a party which has been in opposition for so long.
Third consideration is party unity. He/she who is not able to bring unity, or worse, transmits a sense of division, should be rejected outright. The party is not in a position to split and there is absolutely no need for this to happen. This is not the 1950s, where a charismatic leader can split his own party, rebuild it and take it through harsh and successful times alike. This is 2008, where half of Malta chose this party with all its shortcomings and where many thousands more would have wished to do so. The question of unity should be pondered on deeply and discerned thoroughly.
Fourthly, it is very much a question of evolving values and principles in the context of today’s realities. There are some of the candidates being mentioned that would have made excellent leaders back in the 1970s and 1980s, when the country was still evolving and finding its feet. Far left socialist politics are in my opinion outdated for today’s Malta. Fortunately and thanks also to previous Labour governments, Malta in 2008 is a country whose people strive in earnest to climb up the social ladder. True, and granted: some elements of poverty still remain and should be properly addressed. Also it is probably only the Labour Party that is interested in administering policies that meet these dire realities. But this is not the norm today; it’s just a niche within a dynamically evolving mass. It would be very unwise, therefore, for Labour to elect a leader who does not reflect today’s reality, no matter how sacred such principles are for the party. The choice of a leader whose beliefs, values and principles are firmly bolted in the harsh shadows of the past, is, in my opinion, a sheer refusal by the party to accept the truth of today’s reality. Today’s people want tomorrow and Labour should not give them a leader that denies their aspirations.
A leader is not one who exalts the past but one who adapts quickly, pragmatically and efficiently to the present and even more importantly a one who clearly visualises and articulates the future.
I have no doubt in my mind that there is only one potential candidate that surpasses all the above hurdles, young as he might be.

James Piscopo
Via email

Well, Daphne’s poison pen has certainly – but just barely – earned its keep! One wonders: will it now be put out to grass, seeing as it has achieved its purpose and Labour leader Alfred Sant has resigned? Or is it only in semi-retirement, awaiting the election of the new leader of the party? Will it then be employed once again, in renewed vengeance to spell its vitriolic spin? We can only wait and see!

Pauline Saliba
Naxxar