Alfred Mifsud is what you might call an “opinionist” in more senses than one. He writes a weekly opinion column in the Malta Independent, and ever since withdrawing his own candidature ahead of next June’s MLP leadership race, his opinion is now considered weighty, if not exactly decisive, in the war of Alfred Sant’s succession.
But before launching into the great question of what the future might hold for Labour, I ask him about the present. The Malta Labour Party has now lost three elections on the trot. By the 2013, it will most likely have spent the better part of 25 years in opposition. What, in his reasoned opinion, is Labour’s problem?
“If there’s a problem, it’s not just with the Malta Labour Party,” he replies placidly. “These past 25 years, all left-wing parties have faced the same issue: that of reinventing themselves within the new context of a globalised economy.”
Alfred Mifsud invites me to compare with the Nationalist Party, which unlike Labour found it easy to adapt for the simple reason that its traditional policies sat quite comfortably with the economic liberalism that was demanded at the time.
“For this reason, the PN not only managed to hold onto its traditional support base, but also to network successfully with all power bases of society: the business classes, the professionals, the independent media, etc. But the traditional Labour ethic was different. Too much of its identity was rooted in an economic platform which no longer really existed…”
He goes on to explain that unlike other Social Democrat parties in the rest of Europe, the MLP proved particularly resistant to change. “Tony Blair in the UK, and to a lesser extent Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, understood that networking with these power bases was crucial to electoral success. But in Malta, the same power nodes that provided a tail-wind for the Nationalist Party over the past 20 years, have been a constant head-wind for Labour.”
So why has the Malta Labour Party evolved so differently from its European cousins? For Mifsud, the answer can be summed up in one word: leadership.
“After a leader as strong as Dom Mintoff, there was inevitably a leadership vacuum, which Alfred Sant filled in 1992. Back then, Sant was a breath of fresh air. He did very well for the MLP, up until 1997. But the shadow of Mintoff would not allow him to take Labour into the 21st century. The process of Labour’s reinvention was aborted in 1998, and it has never since been reactivated.”
As expected, Mifsud cites the European Union as another factor which cast a shadow over the MLP’s more recent history. “Before May 2003, the Labour Party made the mistake of forcing the electorate to choose between itself and the European Union. Afterwards, new policies were urgently needed; but the real trouble was that these new policies could never be credible, coming from the same old leadership that spoke of the EU in ‘Alla hares’ (“God forbid”) terms.”
This is much the same argument for which Mifsud was ostracised by the party five years ago. After a number of such articles in the Malta Independent, he received a letter from the MLP’s board of vigilance and discipline in September 2003.
“They told me I was ‘damaging the party’. Personally, I would have thought my articles were trying to avoid further damage to the party. As I put it at the time, we were sowing the seeds for the next electoral defeat. But rather than face the wrath of the board, I simply resigned.”
Five years later, his prediction has been proved spot on. Does he now feel vindicated?
“Possibly, but I am not at all pleased about it. In the circumstances I would much rather have been proved wrong…”
Either way, the party itself appears to have reappraised its opinion of Alfred Mifsud. I ask him if readmission was in any way difficult after his five-year stint in the wilderness.
“Not really, no. I wrote to the board on 11 March asking them to revise their position, and they replied on 14 March informing me that I was free to return any time I liked. I consider that to be a fairly prompt reply…”
So how does he account for the sudden change of heart? There is a twinkle in his eye as he replies: “Five years ago, the ‘power of incumbency’ was overused. But once that power ended, the barrier was removed instantly…”
Alfred Sant’s irrevocable resignation on March 10 did more than just lift the last impediment to Mifsud’s return to the fold. It has also opened a unique opportunity to finally effect the leadership change that Mifsud himself has been advocating all these years.
“What needs to change above all is the party’s vision,” he says when asked how he envisages the ideal profile for an MLP leader. “We need to upgrade our policies to match today’s reality. In a globalised economy, there is only one way to generate wealth. That is to adopt business friendly policies, to lower taxation and to liberalise the economy. When the delegates, or whoever, meet to decide on the next leader, these are the issues they will have to consider…”
This brings us squarely to the crux of the matter, and Alfred Mifsud’s choice of words suddenly becomes significant. That “or whoever” sounds like more than just a casual observation: especially when you consider that one of the front-running candidates, George Abela, has already proposed widening the leadership election to also include all party members, instead of only the thousand-odd delegates who are elected from the parties’ various regional branches. Is this a statement of endorsement for the former deputy leader, MFA president and General Workers’ Union lawyer?
“What I myself want is not that important,” Mifsud replies evasively. “The important thing is that whoever wins the leadership race will also have to pass the test of the wider electorate. I think the wider electorate would feel much more comfortable with George Abela than with any of the others. Is this a scientific observation? No, it’s just an impression of mine. But it wouldn’t be difficult to test it scientifically. After all, we live in an age of market research. By means of surveys you can find out what the blues, the greens, the reds, the yellows and the pinks actually want…”
As for Abela’s proposal, this would remove the leadership decision from the exclusive domain of the MLP elite – among whom the former Labour deputy leader is viewed with suspicion, after “abandoning” the party in 1997 – and extend it to also include the grassroots, where the charismatic union lawyer feels strong. This also implies transforming the MLP leadership election into a quasi-national election. How practical is that?
“From a business perspective, there is a clear line of thinking: the wider the base, the more robust the decision. If there are logistical problems, then by all means let’s solve them. But personally I can live comfortably with as wide a base as possible…”
Leaving aside logistics, Mifsud’s vision for the future of the MLP appears to be rooted in what many would identify as the economic principles of the centre right. Isn’t there a danger, then, that by following his advice Labour would simply reinvent itself as a second Nationalist Party? What choice would be left for the electorate then?
Alfred Mifsud shakes his head. “The fact is that all modern parties now occupy the political centre, for reasons which are beyond their control. There is admittedly little room for manoeuvre at the centre, but not no room at all. The difference is not in the way wealth is created, but how it is distributed. I can be conservative when it comes to wealth creation, but at the same time new policies are needed to avoid social inequality.”
Perhaps the most radical of Mifsud’s envisaged reforms involves the social services.
“I am a very big disbeliever in social services remaining free for all. The ‘free for all’ concept does not fit within Socialist principles.”
Considering that “free health for all” was such a major plank of both parties’ electoral platforms – so much so that the Prime Minister has even declared he would resign, sooner than introduce charges for health – I express surprise that Mifsud would go down such a peril-fraught path. So he patiently outlines the core of his economic vision for a more efficient and socially conscious Malta.
“It offends my social democratic conscience to have a situation where the fruit of labour (salary, overtime, part-time, profits, etc.) are taxed at a rate as high as 35%, whereas the fruit of capital (bank interest and investment income) are taxed at source at a rate of 15%. So ideally, Labour should work towards a unified rate for all income sources and – given the constraints of globalisation that force you to adopt low taxation policy – the unified rate should revolve towards the lower, not the higher one.”
Mifsud claims that such a policy would leave much more money in people’s pockets, but would also force governments to revisit whether the services it universally delivers for free can remain sustainable.
“Few people believe that even under the current scenario, health services could remain universally free for much longer. They will be even more unsustainable if a low tax policy is adopted. The concept of free services for all is hardly social, when one thinks about it. With government resources not being infinite, offering the same to everybody logically also means that you are not offering enough to those who are really in need.”
Consequently, Mifsud argues that a low tax policy can only be sustainable if health and social services are tailored to benefit those who need them the most. “Those who cannot genuinely participate in the wealth creation processes for reason of age (pensioners, children and students) or health, must receive much more aid than that offered universally to all…”
Another issue where Mifsud’s policies appear to conflict with traditional Labour thinking is his attitude towards privatisation, which has to be viewed within a wider context: that of transforming the role of government altogether. But as he points out himself, it is a little late in the day to be talking about privatising government entities.
“We have run out of organisations to privatise,” he admits, “but not of processes.”
Here Mifsud outlines what he calls a “silent privatisation”, whereby infrastructural nodes traditionally operated by government could be farmed out to private enterprise.
“There are some areas which can’t be privatised completely. For instance, law and order, or the Armed Forces. But what about road maintenance? Education? Healthcare? We are moving slowly towards the notion that these and other infrastructural areas can be managed better by the private sector. If these can be made more efficient, the standard of living will improve across the board…”
But wouldn’t that lead to government eroding its own power base?
“Is that such a bad thing?” he replies contemplatively. “The direction we should ultimately be looking at is one whereby government’s role is limited to that of a regulator of standards, instead of an operator. But we would have to guard very carefully against the creation of monopolies. If monopolies are to exist, I would prefer them to be publicly owned: private monopolies not being subject to any electoral process. But where real competition is impossible, there are other models one can follow. For instance, subjecting operations to a short-term licensing regime… ”
At this point I intervene to voice a doubt. So far Alfred Mifsud appears to be advocating a radical economic policy rethink of the kind one might expect from a centre right party. But at the same time, he is throwing his weight behind a candidate who appeals precisely to the traditional elements of the Labour movement: including the grassroots and the proverbially militant GWU. How does Mifsud reconcile this apparent contradiction, and more importantly: how can he expect an old school socialist to transform the Labour party along such unorthodox lines?
“I would say that George Abela appeals to the Labour movement as a whole, and the whole Labour movement is much broader a coalition than just the GWU. In fact, for this very reason he is much more likely to persuade the party to make the most of the opportunity of the moment. As for the grassroots, these need leadership in any case.”
I leave Alfred Mifsud with a traditional closing question: what is his appeal to delegates ahead of the leadership contest?
“Whoever votes for the new leader, it must not be done on the basis of emotions, or friendship, or who lives next door. They have to vote for the strongest among the candidates on offer: the one who can reverse the Malta Labour Party’s current status as the country’s ‘local government and national opposition’. This is what the contest is all about.”