Labour delegates can be sure of one thing: the Nationalist Party is the only one to gain from the prolongation of their post-electoral agony. As long as their leadership vacuum persists, the PN continues to govern without an effective opposition.
On Friday, an extraordinary general conference will be convened and if Labour rejects the motion for a wider electoral college, the PN media will instantly announce that this has been an attempt to block George Abela’s leadership bid, who himself called for the next Labour leader to be elected by all paid-up members of the party.
Labour will be seen as going against the wishes of its rank and file: last Sunday’s MaltaToday survey showed 77% of MLP voters wanted an election by members. But why would anyone say no to a more democratic election when they are unaware of the logistical nightmare an election for 19,000 people entails?
Friday’s decision will be taken by the people who themselves provide the party with valuable support at every political appointment – now they are being asked to divest themselves of their only significant power: electing their leader. They might well ask whether it’s fair to relegate them to the status of common members when they are already chosen as delegates to the general conference.

Pitfalls for Labour
While they stoke the flames in the MLP camp, the PN conveniently ignores the fact that its own leader in 2004 was elected by the restricted number of party councillors. So controlled was the contest by the party administration, the three candidates for the post were not even allowed to debate their views on TV.
Now that Gonzi’s authority in the PN is strengthened by his miraculous resurgence at the polls, the prospect of a leadership change is a faraway prospect.
So if Labour changes the rules of the game now, the PN will have enough time to see how well the democratic experiment worked in the MLP – which would have served as a useful guinea pig. Surely a noble sacrifice for Maltese democracy – but does it make sense to conduct this experiment on a sick party trying to find its soul?
The proponents of the motion may well ask: should we wait for another defeat to change the rules? But one could reply by asking whether there is any guarantee whether the members necessarily have a prophetic wisdom the party delegate lacks.
Experience in other countries shows that enfranchising members is not necessarily a recipe for success. Surely UK Tory leader David Cameron, who was elected by party members after three consecutive Tory defeats, has so far made substantial inroads in rebranding his party for moderate voters.
But in Italy the election of Walter Veltroni by members of the Democratic Party did not save the left from one of its worst defeats in history.
On the other hand if the MLP extends suffrage, it will face the ordeal of organising for a population the size of Mosta. It is doubtful whether it will be possible to do it within a month’s time. It could prove to be a minefield for Labour to guard over a complicated process in the absence of a strong central authority that must have trust of the five leadership contenders. Gathering the list of paid-up members could also prove a daunting task.
Such an election also risks radicalising the contest, setting the stage for future divisions and recriminations. Even the US Democratic Party, which has been using the primary system since the beginning of the 20th century, is presently lacerated between the progressive movement rallying around Barak Obama and the business lobbyists backing Hilary Clinton.

The PN spin
Just as Republican John McCain is gaining ground amid divisions within the Democrats, the Nationalist Party’s agenda seems that of prolonging Labour’s agony, banking on George Abela to make enough inroads in Labour but ultimately failing to win the contest, hoping that this experience will leave him bitter, disappointed and estranged from the new leader.
And even if George Abela does make it, the PN machine can be counted upon to uncover the dark areas of his career and tarnish his reputation as a credible leader and prime ministerial hopeful.
And even if Labour does widen its electorate, it can expect no applause from the PN. The PN media will still conjure the ‘hidden hand’ of the dominant party clique that allegedly backs Joseph Muscat, on any decision taken by Labour delegates.
Perversely, in a further twist to the PN’s spinning, on Sunday il-Mument revealed that the dominant Labour clique is now supporting George Abela’s petition because a survey had showed Joseph Muscat in third place behind Abela and Falzon among delegates.
The innuendo was that Muscat stands a better chance among rank and file members, than among delegates previously depicted as pawns in the hands of secretary-general Jason Micallef and the so-called clique favouring Muscat.
In the absence of a public survey conducted by an independent body among delegates, the only data available consist of two surveys: one conducted by Alfred Mifsud, and another by MaltaToday last Sunday which shows Joseph Muscat as the favourite of Labour voters and George Abela the favourite of Nationalists and floaters: a clear example of the PN machine at work.
When one considers that Muscat enjoys a 19% lead over George Abela from among MLP voters, one can conclude that most probably he also enjoys the same advantage among party members.
Surely the two surveys are a powerful indication to Labour delegates of who the party’s rank and file want as their leader.
The MaltaToday survey shows that George Abela is more popular than Muscat among PN and floating voters, reflecting a decade-long beatification by the PN of anybody who fell out with Alfred Sant, a process which has ramifications in other sectors of the media and which also have a bearing on what floating voters think.
But neither floaters nor Nationalists are voting for a Labour leader here. Ironically, in theory the people best suited to deliberate on who stands the best chance among floating voters are the delegates themselves. Given half a chance, members are only likely to be swayed by passion and enthusiasm for one of the contenders.
In practice both members and delegates (who are themselves elected by the members) are likely to be swayed by the same sentiments, prejudices and hopes. And rightly so: at this moment Labour has to choose a leader who must give it soul, a purpose and a destination.
For the first time in years, progressive social democratic values and the party’s secular identity are taking centre-stage, thanks also to Evarist Bartolo and Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca, even if they are not making significant inroads.
For it is only after the party rediscovers its identity that it can embark on the battle for the moderate vote. Rendering the Labour contest an abstract calculation on who has the greatest mathematical chance of winning the floating voter, is an artificial exercise. Floating voters are won or lost by significant actions taken by the future leader.
If Labour extend their suffrage, it will go down in history as the party that won or lost a big gamble at a crucial phase in its history; or it can do so comfortably after electing its new leader. Surely with 77% of Labour voters preferring an election by members, the party will be expected to embark on the process to change the party’s statutes to make this possible. It could do so when it’s healthy enough to take the stress of a fully-fledged internal exercise of direct democracy.
The new MLP leader could even go one step ahead by seeking a confidence vote from party members after being chosen by the delegates. This will serve to quell any doubts on the legitimacy of his or her election and to unify the party behind him.

jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt